b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
- To: Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
- Cc: b-hebrew List <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:24:45 -0500
The thing is that we (at least this humble member of this great list) don't know what is the intended distinction between a qamats and a patax. Did these markings represent different pronunciations, or was the qamats used to indicate only something gramatical, we just don't know ––– the NAKDANIYM took their secrets with them to their grave, and left us wondering. In any event, no one I know speaks a qamats differently than a patax. I think that the dagesh preceded the NIKUD and wherever the NAKDANIYM saw a dagesh they marked a patax, otherwise they put a qamats.
Trust me that if you write a patax instead of a qamats no one will notice, except for some real experts (for most people the NIKUD is anyway is but a mere annoyance and a hindrance to fluent reading), but your NIKUD will be considered "incorrect" and you will be derided for it. So, to put a "correct" NIKUD I look it up in one of the available tables and copy it verbatim.
Suggestions surface from time to time to reform the NIKUD and combine the different Hebrew A markings, but the Hebrew "Academy" is too orthodox for that, and the Hebrew speaking public doe's not give a hoot, "knowing" NIKUD is not required anymore for the high school BAGRUT exams.
A syllable is open if it is opened, and is close if it is closed.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Jan 18, 2011, at 12:35 AM, Pere Porta wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?,
Pere Porta, 01/18/2011
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?,
Yigal Levin, 01/18/2011
- Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?, Pere Porta, 01/18/2011
-
Message not available
- Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?, Yigal Levin, 01/18/2011
- Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah? Why the ambiguity?, Christopher Kimball, 01/18/2011
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?,
Yigal Levin, 01/18/2011
- Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?, Isaac Fried, 01/18/2011
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
[b-hebrew] Why not patah?,
Uri Hurwitz, 01/18/2011
- Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?, Isaac Fried, 01/18/2011
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.