Welcome, Aviel. DIMKEM (Gn 9:5) and YEDKEM (Ex 32:29) are indeed rather rare forms. But remark that we have too $IMKEM (Is 65:15), )IMKEM (Is 50:1), LIBKEM (Gn 18:5)... and others...
Heartly, Pere Porta (Barcelona, Catalonia, Northeastern Spain) 2013/1/8 Isaac Fried <[email protected]> > It is not you that is confused, it is the book that is confused. In my > humble opinion there is no such thing in Hebrew as "short" and "long" > vowels. it is all but the figment of imagination and inventive power of > some obsolete "grammarians". The punctuators, the נקדנים of the Hebrew > bible did not leave us a user's manual, and we are not even sure if the > different signs, say patach and qamets, represent different vowels sounds. > > It is indeed marked in the table I am using: > > ד"ר שאול ברקלי > לוח השמות השלם > הוצאת ראובן מס ירושלים תשל"ג > > that DAG-KA is with a qamets under the the D, but that DAG-KEM is with a > patach under the D. This is the paradigm, and this is how we punctuate the > words if we want to do it "correctly". The "explanation" as to why it is so > we leave to חכמי חלם the wise men of Xelem. > > I will add here that the personal pronoun אתה ATAH, or AT, appears also in > attachments as AKAH, or AK. ATEM appears to me to be the combination > AT-HEM, and AKEM the combination AK-HEM. > > The table of names I mentioned above (there is also a companion table on > verbs) are indispensable books of Hebrew grammar. Unfortunately they are > out of print, but can often be found used. > > > Isaac Fried, Boston University > > > On Jan 7, 2013, at 1:50 PM, E wrote: > > B"H - > > I have been studying Davidson's Lexicon of Hebrew, in particular the > "declension" of nouns they have arranged. > > I am stuck on a concept I can't figure out: in the 2nd declension, which > refers mainly to reduction of kamets, they point out that when the grave > suffix -chem is added to two words, namely > > YAD and DAM, the resulting forms are YED-CHEM and DIM-CHEM. > > They say that a patach does not result, because the forms segol-shva and > hiriq-shva are shorter than the expected patach-shva. > > > I am confused as to what this exactly means - what makes one construction > shorter than another, when all are short vowels? > > How also, can vowels shorten out of their vowel types, e.g. a kamets > moving to the e type segol, and also the i type hiriq? > > I was under the impression vowels do not switch into other vowel types - > the reduction is strictly within their own boundaries. > > I am very curious about this question, and subscribed to this list on its > merit. I thank anyone who can help. > > Best, > > Aviel Jones > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew > > -- Pere Porta
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
