Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 2/22/09, Brak wrote:

> The example you gave in Gn4:9 and Ps 146:6 of <H:A/$OM"R@Pg/vqPmsa> and
> <HA/$.OM"R@Pa/vqPmsa> does not met the criteria of my question for two
> reasons:
> 1: There is an additional change to the word beside the dagesh (as you
> pointed out yourself - the HE has a hataf patah in the first word, and a
> patah in the second word. This only effects the prefix of the word the first
> being an interrogative, the second being an article).
> 2: <$OM"R> and <$.OM"R> both have the same meaning as they are both Qal
> Participle Masculine Singular Absolute based on the root <$MR>.

No.  The dagesh is the only difference between the two.  The dagesh
conveys a difference in pronunciation.  The difference between patah
and hataf patah is due to the presence of dagesh.  In closed syllables,
patah is used, whereas in open syllables hataf patah is used.  It is the
gemination causes the syllable to be closed.  Thus, the two words are
pronounced:
ha-sho-mer - interrogative
hash-sho-mer - definite article
The only difference in pronunciation is the gemination.  EVERYTHING
else is pronounced the same way.   In both cases ("ha" vs. "hash")
the "a" is short.  It just so happens that short a in an open syllable
is marked by a hataf patah and in a closed syllable by a regular
patah (at least in standardized manuscripts).  Just because they are
marked differently, does not mean they are pronounced differently.
What therefore marks the first as an interrogative vs definite article
is the use of gemination.

Please note: the two also have different cantillation marks - but you seem
to ignore these.  Why are you willing to overlook differences in cantillation
marks but not overlook differences in patah/hataf patah?  All these signs
are meant to convey a system of pronunciation, but instead of looking at
pronunciation, you seem to want to look at differences in the graphical
representation of the pronunciation without trying to understand the
system and rules of the graphical representation (such as the difference
in open vs closed syllables above).  In this case, I happened to find an
example where $omer was spelled defectively, without a waw.  But if it
had been spelled with a waw, does that mean you would not accept the
example?  Why?  The waw is ignored in the vocalization, and it is only
the holam that matters.

So the answer to your question is yes.  Perhaps instead of me citing more
examples, you should explain what this is all about.  What is the "ultimate"
purpose of your inquiry?

Yitzhak Sapir