Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?
  • Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:27:52 +0200

Hi Pere,



The first syllable is not a closed syllable. Ask any competent Torah-reader.
The proper pronunciation is a-me-ru, sha-le-xu. Were it a closed syllable,
the qamats would be a qamats qatan, and the pronunciation would be om-ru,
shol-xu etc.



Now, why the Mesoretes used identical signs for a long a and for a short o
is another question.



Yigal Levin



From: Pere Porta [mailto:pporta7 AT gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 7:36 AM
To: Yigal Levin
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?



Dear list,



We all know that the vowel of the first syllable in the Qal Perfect, third
person plural, of regular verbs (shelemim) is qamats.

And so,



--)FM:RW, they said (Ps 64:6)

--$FLXW, they sent (Jr 14:3)

and so on.



My question is: why a qamats and not a patah?



Reasons like "tradition", "custom"... are not welcome.



I'm trying to know and understand why a qamats and not a patah, mainly if we
consider that this first syllable is a closed syllable.



Would there be any trouble if patah was used here in the place of qamats?



Pere Porta

(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)



_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




--
Pere Porta





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page