Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 06/01/2007 21:50, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
> On 1/6/07, Peter Kirk wrote:
>   
> > On 06/01/2007 19:57, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
> >     
> > > ...
> > > Compare Ibn Ezra's Tsaxut which states:
> > > And the noted scholar (Hayyuj) said that the Tiberians would read the
> > > mobile schewa if a yod follows, with the vowel of hiriq as in יֶחְזְיָהוּ
> > > (yɛxziyɔhu) יִרְמְיָהוּ  (yirmiyɔhu) ...
> > >       
> > I think you mean that they would read yɛxiziyɔhu, yirimiyɔhu. Well, the
> > Greek and Latin version of the latter name, and the English "Jeremiah",
> > tend to confirm that there should be a vowel between the resh and the mem.
> >     
>
> I quoted the source I had.  I think it's a misreading of zayin for dalet,
> referring to the name יֶחְדְּיָהוּ which has the following in the
> parallel Hebrew/
> Septuagint at CCAT:
> YXDYHW  IADIA
> YXDYHW  IADIAS
>
>   
I think I may have been confused here, partly because of the small size 
of the Hebrew pointing on my screen. I thought the claim was that the 
sheva under xet or resh was mobile. But I now see that there is also a 
sheva under zayin and mem, which I had misread as hiriq. So this is 
supporting the traditional position that the "r" and "m" form a 
consonant cluster in Hebrew, although they don't in Greek, Latin or English.

...
> > > ... and the schewa which is followed by a big
> > > qamats (ie, qamats) as in בְּרָכָה שְׁמָרִים as a hataf patax
> > > (=barɔkɔ, $amɔrim)
> > > that is, a schewa with a patax, and if after the mobile schewa there is one
> > > of the letters alef,het,het,ayin which are the guttural letters, the schewa is
> > > always as the vowel which follows such as (2 Kings 10:10) דְעוּ אפוא the
> > > dalet is to be read as a shuruq ("du(u") and in the word דְּעִי as if
> > > it is with
> > > a hiriq ("di(i") and in דְּעֶה as if it is with a small patax (ie, segol).
> > >
> > >
> > >       
> > Doesn't the last part of this imply that the qamats gadol in words like
> > בְּרָכָה שְׁמָרִים (your barɔkɔ, $amɔrim) is closer to a hataf patax than to a
> > hataf qamats, therefore that it is more of an "a" than an "o" and
> > different in quality from qamats qatan?
> >     
>
> I don't follow.  In any case, Ibn Ezra's names of the vowels include
> qamats gadol = our qamats
> qamats katan = our tsere
> patah gadol = our patah
> patah katan = our segol
>   

I am making a different point, against one you made earlier, than Ibn 
Ezra is implying two different pronunciations of (our) qamats. I think 
your explanation of his terminology doesn't affect my argument, although 
I am using the modern terminology. To put it more bluntly, if "the 
schewa is always as the vowel which follows", and when the vowel that 
follows is a long qamats the sheva is pronounced like patah, an "a" 
sound, and not like any kind of "o", that implies that the long qamats 
is an "a" sound, not an "o", and so distinct at least from hataf qamats. 
Actually the same is seen in the Masoretic punctuation for gutturals, as 
in the paradigms of verbs with guttural letters: a silent sheva is 
regularly replaced under a guttural by a hataf matching the preceding 
vowel as follows:

hiriq - C - sheva > segol - guttural - hataf segol
OR hiriq - C - sheva > patah - guttural - hataf patah
patah - C - sheva > patah - guttural - hataf patah
short qamats - C - sheva (in the Hophal) > short qamats - guttural - 
hataf qamats
long qamats - C - sheva (in some forms of the Qal and of the Piel 
imperative) > long qamats - guttural - hataf PATAH

Admittedly Gesenius' paradigms note that several of his examples of the 
last form are conjectured. But he does note a real form הִשָּׁחֲטוּ 
HI$.FX:A+W. (although the attestation must be of a similar root, not 
this precise one), a niphal plural imperative replacing הִקָּטְלוּ HIQ.F+:LW. 
Real forms of this type which I have found is בָּרֲכוּ B.FR:AKW. as a piel 
imperative, Judges 5:9, and שָׁחֲחוּ &FX:AXW. in Job 9:13. I'm sure there 
are many more with "ayin guttural" verbs. Why, on your theory, a hataf 
patah in these places, and not a hataf qamats?

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/