Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

  ...>"The thing is that we...  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 >..."   

     If you'd taken the slightest trouble, you'd
 have found out that whoever vocalized the consonantal
 text, heard distinctly two different 'A' vowels.
    Correspondingly they were given different markers.
 One was a Qamatz, another a Patach, and related to
 the last, a semi-vowel hataf-patach. There is no point
 in explicating the differences bweteen long and short
 vowels here. For one thing,  Proto-Semitic may raise
 its ugly head. Just dust off your old elementary
 grammer books.

  The second post to which I respond, read in part:

  ..."> My question is: why a qamats and not a patah?
>
> Reasons like "tradition", "custom"... are not welcome.<"..


   Please check the top of my current post.
   Hopefully the following words wll be a little
 welcome... 

   Sometimes those who vocalized  biblical texts, made
 mistakes, but this is not the place to elaborate.
  
   Then there are the well known differences between
 'Ktiv' and 'Qri'. Because certain words were written
 one way, 'Ktiv', and had become canonic with the text
 in which they appeared, they could not be changed even
 when they were considered wrong.
   So they were pronounced differently, and this was known as
  'Qri'.

   Many hundreds of such difference between the 'Ktiv'
 and the 'Qri" were counted in the biblical texts; however,
 according to different counts, they amounted to over
 fifteen hundred cases, depending on
 the manuscripts. 

  Uri Hurwitz                                    Great Neck, NY

   




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
>>
>
>
>