Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> On 03/10/2006 18:55, Vadim Cherny wrote:
> > Are you sure? I was under impression that transliterations have -ac/-ec
2ms
> > suffix, quite with a vowel.
> > The difference with the MT could be explained: we just read the MT
> > incorrectly. Vocalization in suffixes is trailing (like under het), not
> > lagging. The Masoretes meant to read dvarac, we just erroneously read
> > dvarcha. That explains absence of dagesh kal in the suffix consonant in
MT:
> > dvarcha rather than the expected dvar.ca with interconsonantal stop,
dagesh
> > kal.
> >
> Are you suggesting that the word final qamets under kaf and he (but not
> other letters, I think, and only found in certain personal suffixes)
> should be read before the final letter in the same way as furtive patah?
> An interesting idea, but surely in falls down in that the sheva in
> dvarkha/dvarakh would then be redundant.
> -- 
> Peter Kirk

Schwa falls exactly in its place.
Schwa accounts for the difference between patah (such as under final het)
and kamatz (in suffixes). Schwa, read as apostrophe, makes the reading,
d'var'ach. Absent of schwa, the reading would have been, d'varach,
syllabified as d'va-rach. The second [a] would likely be short in closed
syllable after "1.5" vowels (vocal schwa and long first [a]).
Another reason for schwa (apostrophe) is to provide clear pronunciation of
word-final consonant without trailing vowel. Compare, d'va-rach and
d'var'ach. Caf is much stronger in the second case, with schwa. That seems
the major reason for schwa.
If [a] is a lagging sound (dvarcha) then the second schwa (d'var'cha) is
really inexplicable, and the artifical rules were invented to explain it.

Vadim Cherny