From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Shva merahephet
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:25:05 -0500
Dear Vadim,
Did any of you ever study the device of shva merahephet, the
differenc between calBi (my dog), and calVei(dogs)? Any information
on this?
HH: One difference between "my dog" on the one hand, and "dogs" in
the construct form on the other, is the vowel pointing under the
beth. With the plural word there is a sere, while the singular with a
suffix takes hireq. There seems to be a shewa under the lamed in both
cases. There also seems to be a difference because the beth in the
singular word takes a dagesh, while there is no dagesh in beth on the
plural word. You seem to be asking why there is no dagesh in the beth
in the plural word, implying that it might be a result of the
previous shewa, which you call a shva merahephet.
HH: I believe that some grammars call this a shewa medium (see
Waltke-O'Connor 36.1.1c). Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley 10d states that
originally the shewa was thought to be part of a "loosely closed" or
"wavering" syllable. But this distinction has now been abandoned. The
syllables are really closed, and the original vowel is not merely
shortened but entirely elided. The fact that a following BeGadKePHaTH
letter remains spirant (soft) instead of taking the dagesh lene is
understood on the "supposition that the change from hard to spirant
is older than the elision of the vowel, and that a prehistoric
malakai (e.g.) became malakhai before being shortened to malkhey.
HH: I don't know what the most current thinking about this is. There
is a newer grammar by Muroaka that I don't have. Waltke-O'Connor
1.6.3d states that the MT may reflect post-biblical developments in
the double pronunciation of the "begadkephat" letters and that the
external (i.e., non-biblical) evidence is confused.
HH: Waltke-O'Connor also suggest that the two sounds of the
begakephat letters are allophones, variant sounds that arise due to
the linguistic environment. That is, the variation is due to the
sounds that precede and follow the letter. The variations are aspects
of the same letter in different environments and do not lead to a
contrast in meaning.
HH: So any information that you have on this topic would be helpful.