... 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.
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.