Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

Sébastien,

you bring here two different cases.

1. You refer to the word we find in Dt 6:5. There are other similar cases in
the Bible (look for instance at Ps 55:23; at 1Sa 9:10 or at Gn 40:19).

Remark:
-All nouns consisting of three root letters, the first one having shewa and
the second one having qamats (all....with *five* exceptions) ------> take
qamats under the second consonant when they take the masculine suffix for
you (male).

--Most nouns consisting of three root letters, the first one having tsere
(long e) and the second one having qamats (the word you mention is one of
these: look at Dt 28:28 for the basic or absolute) behave similarly if they
do not come from roots ayin-waw nor have a guttural for their first root
consonant.
2. The Hoph'al.

The first syllable in the Hoph'al is ALWAYS read with vowel 'o' and in the
unvowellized writing a waw is inserted.

So, הָקְטַל

is ALWAYS read or pronounced as "hoqtal" and it is always written as הוקטל
in the writing without vowels (namely the usual Israeli script...)

You have other cases in Jr 6:6, Joel 1:9 and in Dn 9:1

Is this clear enough for your purposes?


Heartly

Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)

2011/2/28 Sébastien Louis <sebalou AT hotmail.com>

>
> Hello,
>
>
>
>
>
> I’ve got one question
> about the qames and qames-hatuph (linked also with the sheva and the
> syllabes). If the qames is
> in a closed, unaccented syllable, it is pronounced qames-hatuph. Take these
> 2 words:
>  לְבָבְךָ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> הָקְטַל
>
>
>
>
> My question is: why do we pronounce "le-va-ve-kha" (and not "le-vov-kha")
> on the
> one hand; and on the other hand, “hoq-tal”? Both cases
> seem to me identical, i.e. a qames in a closed, unaccented syllable. So why
> 2 different rules?
>
>
>
>
> In
>  other words, why is the qames in the first case a
> qames and not a qames-hatuph since it is followed by a sheva, so in a
> closed,
> unaccented syllable (I presume the accent falls on the last
> syllable)? Or, to say it again differently, why is the syllable "va" in
> "le-va-ve-kah" open and not closed, since followed by a sheva?
>
>
>
>
>
> Many thanks in advance if you can help.
>
>
> Sébastien
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>



-- 
Pere Porta