Why do you assume that the first sere should be reduced to hatef patah in
your view?
Why not to hatef segol?
Would it not be more logical that a sere becomes hatef segol (and not hatef
patah) when reduced?
Answer:
Vowel reduction turns a qamets or sere into a shewa. If that shewa is beneath
a guttural, it will usually become a hatef patah, since gutturals generally
prefer A-class vowels. In any case, though, I'd still be comfortable with a
hatef segol. My question is, why doesn't it?
GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au