Aren't the "chatafim" unique to the MT? In Arabic grammer there is a sh'wa,
the "skun", but no mobile sh'wa ( shwa na'), and certainly no "chatafim". The
latter reflected the Masoretes sharp hearing of the actual pronounciation of
biblical reading; and indeed phoentically there is a slight deviation from a
strictly unwovelled pronounciation of the guttorals. This slight deviation
they marked with the various chatafim as they heard them, patach,segol etc.
They definitely did not hear them as full vowels, for in that case they would
not have felt the need for a new notation.
The same applies to a moblie sh'wa.
Now, mistakes occurred, and were carried forward from one edition to the next
because of the nature of the texts. When one has thousands of examples of
chatafim, (I never counted them!) with only a handful of exceptions to
their normal occurrence -- as in Lev. 25: 34 for exmple -- one need not
look for rationalization of mistakes by describing them as a "long sh'wa"
-- a contradiction in terms -- or as a means for "emphasizing the vocal
character of the sh'wa", whatever that phrase means, or any other explanation
other than the sad fact that not all that is done by humans is perfect!
Uri
>
> Yigal Levin wrote, inter alia:
>..."which still does not explain the reason. It apparently has
to do with a
no-longer current tradition of using the Hataph-Patah as a
"long" Shewa."
wattswestmaas wrote:
> Just when you think you learned the rules along comes something
> isruptive - please can someone put me straight here.
>
> Exodus 31:18 K'TuViM (written) an adjectivial participle that does not fit
> the rules. That can not be I know that I am wrong - BUT I can not see it
> fitting anything other than a Qal category (no prefix) but then the 'qibbus'
> throws me - what am I missing?
It's a Qal passive, which as the MT is pointed only shows up in the
participle.