Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>]

I'm sorry Vadim,

could you clarify the following points:
-what is a haial?
-what do you mean by the smihuth and shtayim/shtey-issue?
-what do you mean by your last paragraph (with 'nizcar' etc.)?
Excuse me, I just lost you there.

Best regards,
Herman

2006/3/13, Vadim Cherny <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>:
>
> > >I would like to ask the interested members' opinion on the origin of
> > >the word ???? shtayim.
> > >Remarkably, this word has a shwa with the shin, but a dagesh in the taw.
> > >A so-called shwa na` (mobile) is supposed not to be followed by a
> > >sharp begedkepet consonant sign:
>
> That is merely imprecise mnemonic rule.
> Shtaim was originally used in smihuth, thus accent shift and consequential
> reduction to shtei, normalized as shtaim. As for the dagesh, it indicates
> the original form of piel or haial. Haial seems more plausible for me.
> In other words, shtaim is a haial noun (or piel verb) commonly used in
> smihuths.
>
> > But once you come to the realization that a shwa represents the lack
> > of a vowel --- no more, no less --- everything because eaiser and more
> > sensible.
>
> What vowel is lacked in nizcar? Interconsonantal schwa represents not a
> vowel but consonantal vocalization, important in chanting to break the
> clusters (ne-z'-car). Indeed, I argue that all Hebrew words originate from
> CV, thus zacer - nzacer - nezcar, but that loss of the vowel took place long
> before the Masoretes added interconsonantal schwa, which represents not a
> vowel, but vocalization.
>
> Vadim Cherny
>
>