We have already mentioned that the segol is apparently an E/I or
tsere/xiriq compromise (namely, segol = tsere plus a xiriq under it),
as in the word אֶצְבַּע ECBA, 'finger', that was possibly
called by some ICBA (with an initial xiriq, as suggested by the
dagesh in the letter B), but was overruled by the NAQDANIYM for their
own traditional or euphonic reasons into the existing form.
Similarly, the tsere (two dots placed horizontally) is possibly an E/
A compromise (I vaguely remember that Rashi calls the tsere a qamatc
qatan). Thus the word עֵגֶל EGEL, 'calf', for instance, is
possibly a "masoretic" compromise, or override, of AGIL.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Jul 23, 2013, at 1:56 AM, Pere Porta wrote:
My question is:
is there any good reason for the tsere -and not a patah-- under
Tthe form in Mic 1:8?_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
