Some more examples for the interaction-contraction of the personal
pronouns אני ANIY, 'I', and אנו ANU, 'we', with the first letter
of the verb in the hif'il form:
גבה אַגְבִּיהַּ נַגְבִּיהַּ patax under the
A, schwa under the G, dagesh in the B, Mapiq in the, radical, H.
אכל אַאֲכִל נַאֲכִל xatap-patax, namely a patax/schwa
compromise, under the second A. No dagesh in the K.
ירד אוֹרִיד נוֹרִיד AO- and NO-
יכח אוֹכִיחַ נוֹכִיחַ AO- and NO-
יטב אֵיטִיב נֵיטִיב EIY- and NEY-
יצב אַצִּיב נַצִּיב patax followed by a dagesh.
נפל אַפִּיל נַפִּיל patax followed by a dagesh.
נסע אַסִּיעַ נַסִּיעַ patax followed by a dagesh.
ירה אוֹרֶה נוֹרֶה AO- and NO-
קום אָקִים נָקִים qamatz, no dagesh in the Q.
בוא אָבִיא נָבִיא qamatz, no dagesh no dagesh in the B.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Jul 23, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Isaac Fried wrote:
1. The NIYQUD is perplexing. It is conceivable that the different
point marks are combinations to express certain compromises in the
various reading traditions, and to also satisfy certain euphonic
exigencies.
2. I go out of the assumption that the dot in the letter, the
dagesh, was already there when the NAQDANIYM came to add the
external dot vowels. The dagesh served as an early, pre NIYQUD,
reading cue for a patax, a xiriq, and a qubuc. No dagesh was thus
needed in "full", or plene writing. This is what we call now the
dagesh "forte".
3. In case of a schwa following a patax, a xiriq, or a qubuc the
dagesh was moved ahead one letter. This is what we call now a
dagesh "lene". As we got the habit to automatically "harden" BGDKPT
at the sight of an internal dot, the dagesh "lene" was retained for
these letters, but was ignored for all other letters.
4. The same thing happened to the initial dagesh, which I think is
but a remnant of a dot to mark the first letter of a distinct word.
5. Now, in אַשְׁבִּיתָה )$BYTH of Dt 32:26, there is a
dagesh in the letter B, and hence the patax under the initial A.
Because the word is written "full" with a yod following the B no
dagesh is needed in the letter T. Similarly, there is a dagesh
"lene" in the letter D of וָאַבְדִּילָה W)BDYLH of Ezr
8:24, but no dagesh "lene" in the letter L (not BGDKPT) of
וְאַבְלִיגָה W)BLYGH of Job 9:27.
6. In Micah 1:8 we find אֶסְפְּדָה
וְאֵילִילָה אֵילְכָה in which the segol is,
methinks, a xiriq/tsere compromise (as in אֶצְבַּע ECBA,
'finger'), and where the tsere is due to the yod.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Jul 23, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Pere Porta wrote:
he word in Mic 1:8 we dealt with some days ago, has tsere under
the aleph.
Now, some words are found in the biblical text having the same
pattern (binyan, person, number...)... And so,
)$BYTH, ashbytah (Dt 32:26)
W)BDYLH, w'abdylah (Ezr 8:24)
W)BLYGH, w'ablygah (Job 9:27)
All of these have PATAH under the aleph.
My question is:
is there any good reason for the tsere -and not a patah--
under Tthe form in Mic 1:8?
Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Northeastern Spain)
_______________________________________________
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
