Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

Laurent,

I tend to agree with Uri Hurwitz of this list that a XATAP PATAX  
under a non "guttural" letter should be considered a misplacement.
As for the double lettered words, I looked again at the Biblia  
Hebraica Stuttgartensia, of which I have a copy on my desk, to find  
there: בְּתְחַנְנוֹ Gen 42:21; הַמֲלַקְקִים  
Samuel I 7:6,7; בְּהִתְפַּלְלוֹ Job 42:10; with no  
dagesh in the first letter of the pair. Any Hebrew speaker of today  
routinely puts a bold E between the twain to read BHITXAN[E]NO, HAMLAQ 
[E]QIM, BHITPAL[E]LO to clearly articulate, for the benefit of his  
listeners, both repeating letters. His meek schoolmaster  
apologetically explains that this E override for the schwa is but a  
"half vowel". I that I detest the schwa "NA(" read BHITXAN[]NO, HAMLAQ 
[]QIM, BHITPAL[]LO with brief silent skips.
On the other hand I find: חִלְּלוֹ Deut 20:6;  
וְהִתְחַנְּנוּ Kings I 8:33; with a dagesh.
All this is testimony, I think, either to the struggles and  
disagreements the early NAQDANIM had with this issue, or to the fact  
that later punctuators hired by various publishers of the Hebrew  
bible did what they saw fit.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Mar 5, 2009, at 8:51 AM, Laurent Pinchard wrote:

> thanks Isaac for that. Indeed the double letter in your examples  
> induces strange coloration with hataf patah which also appears  
> strangely in your examples with teth, resh. Do you then confirm  
> that the lamed in my example should never bear a hatuf patah as it  
> is a preposition that can as such only bear shewa, hireq or patah?
>
> De : Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
> À : Laurent Pinchard <ougaritique AT yahoo.fr>
> Cc : b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Envoyé le : Mardi, 3 Mars 2009, 23h19mn 16s
> Objet : Re: Re : hatuf patah under the lamed (LHBDYL) in Gen 1,18  
> and Lev 10,10
>
> laurent,
>
> What I mean by anything can be explained one way or another is that  
> some people may construe an explanation to this unusual  
> punctuation. See for instance the reply of Yitzhak Sapir.
> Few more words on the XATAP PATAX. I see that some books (Biblia  
> Hebraica Stuttgartensia) in case of a double letter will now and  
> then follow the punctuation: צָלֲלוּ Ex 15:10,  
> וְגָלֲלוּ Gen 29:3,8, due to a punctuator possibly thinking  
> that it would be good to separate the double letter by a vowel to  
> avoid the reading CALU, GALU. But we also find קִלְלַת Deut  
> 21:23, חַלְלֵי Sam I 17:52, בְּעַנְנִי Gen 9:14. My  
> school Hebrew bible has these words always with a schwa.
> Sometimes the purpose of this punctuation is obscure: אֵרֲדָה  
> Gen 18:21, תֹּאכֲלֶנּוּ Num 18:10, הוּטֲלוּ Jer  
> 22:28. My school Hebrew bible has these words always with a schwa.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On Mar 3, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Laurent Pinchard wrote:
>
> > Isaac, thanks very much for your answer. This is indeed what I  
> > thought, both editions I have mention hatuf patah but a third one  
> > that I have (Vigouroux)mentions shewa which reflects your version  
> > as well.
> >
> > If you say "anything can be explained one way or another.", what  
> > rationale would you give to hatuf patah, then ? to me this is  
> > definitely an error and no support can be given for a lamed with  
> > hatuf patah. Would you be able to explain such a deviant though?
> >
> > laurent
> >
> > De : Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
> > À : Laurent Pinchard <ougaritique AT yahoo.fr>
> > Cc : b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > Envoyé le : Lundi, 2 Mars 2009, 13h24mn 57s
> > Objet : Re: hatuf patah under the lamed (LHBDYL) in Gen 1,18 and  
> > Lev 10,10
> >
> > Laurent,
> >
> > It is possibly a mistake or a deviant. My Hebrew bible from school  
> > has a schwa under the L in both Genesis and Leviticus, and it is  
> > so also in the on-line bible of mechon-mamre at http://www.mechon- 
> > mamre.org/i/t/t0.htm
> > Of course anything can be explained one way or another.
> >
> > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> >
> > On Mar 2, 2009, at 6:19 AM, Laurent Pinchard wrote:
> >
> > > dear Isaac,
> > >
> > > would you know why in Gen 1,18 we have a hatuf patah under the  
> > > lamed (LHBDYL), which I don't understand: this semi vowel never  
> > > appears under lamed as a preposition. Note that I have this from  
> > > the BHS edition. Interestingly Leviticus 10,10 also mentions the  
> > > same lamed with hatuf patah on the same word. Elsewhere any word  
> > > starting with W(shuruk)LH-- would have as anticipated a patah or  
> > > a shewa. Is this hatuf patah under the lamed a mistake? if not  
> > > what is the rationale ?
> > >
> > > laurent