Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

brachot
Posts: 1
Joined: 2017-04-12, 16:19
Gender: male

Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby brachot » 2017-04-12, 19:00

Hello,

I am trying to nail down how to tell for sure if a syllable in Biblical Hebrew is open or closed when there is a sheva involved.

For instance...

קֵ֔דְמָה (Leviticus (VaYikra) 1:16) should be pronounced "qê·ḏə·māh" (open first syllable?) Correct?
My question is how do you know? Why could it not be qêd·māh?

What about verse 17 for instance...
יַבְדִּיל yav·dîl Why only 2 syllables (closed first syllable?) and not 3 like the above example. It does have a prefix so maybe that is part of it.

This may not be the only question I have about this because there are other situations as well.

I've read what I can find about it but sometimes it still seems very ambiguous.

Thank you.

User avatar
księżycowy
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 12624
Joined: 2006-09-13, 23:51
Real Name: Paweł
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby księżycowy » 2017-04-13, 12:11

In general, if there is only one sheva in the word, such as קֵ֔דְמָה it would be pronounced as "qedmah". (I'm typing from a phone, so I can't do much with transliteration :P ) So, it would be a closed syllable.

It's different if there are two shevas next to each other.

At least that's how I was taught. Then again, I tend to use Modern Israeli pronunciation, as opposed to Tiberian. It might be different in Tiberian.

If noöne else posts by the time I'm able to check my textbook, I'll double check and let you know.

I'm curious to know what source you've pulled these pronunciations from.

User avatar
księżycowy
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 12624
Joined: 2006-09-13, 23:51
Real Name: Paweł
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby księżycowy » 2017-04-13, 19:30

Ok, I've checked my Hebrew textbooks, and they basically both agree on the following.....
Shewas are vocal when:
1. They are under the first letter of a word. (ex. דְּבָרִים)
2.When it's the second of two shewas in a row. (ex. יִּשְׁמְעוּ) [The shewa under shin would not be pronounced, but the one under mem would be.]
3. When it follows a long vowel. (ex. וּלְאָדָם)
4. When it is under a letter that is followed by the same letter. (ex. יְבָכְךָ) [Both shewas would be pronounced in this word]
5. When under a letter with a dagesh forte. (ex. מְיַלְּדוֺת) [Again, both shewas would be pronounced here]

So, if we apply the above rules to your two examples, we can deduce why the shewas are or are not pronounced.

In קֵדְמַה it is pronounced because it follows a long vowel (a tsere)

In יַבְדִּיל it isn't pronounced because it is not the first letter, doesn't follow a long vowel (patah is a short vowel), doesn't have a a dagesh forte in the bet, nor does it have a following bet in the word.

This was a good refresher for me. :)

HoneyBuzzard
Posts: 468
Joined: 2009-04-18, 11:08

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby HoneyBuzzard » 2017-04-13, 20:12

I've recently been trying to get back into Hebrew myself (I have to confess I mostly use it as an outlet for wanderlust, hence the slow progress even though I've been pecking at it for years), and silent vs. vocal shewa is something that, it seems to me, is never properly explained by any of the authors whose books i have (Weingreen, Ross, Pratico and van Pelt).

E.g.,Weingreen has (p. 10):

the preposition 'to' is a prefixed (vowelless) לְ, so that when it is prefixed to the word שְׁמוּאֵל (šəmûʾēl - 'Samuel')the combination לְשְׁמוּאֵל (ləšəmûʾēl) cannot be articulated, and the first vocal shewa becomes the short vowel Ḥireq לִשְׁמוּאֵל (lišəmûēl - 'to Samuel'). The second shewa remains vocal, as it was before the preposition was attached.


But then Ross has (p. 46):

Two shewas are not written consecutively at the beginning of a word. Rather, the first becomes ḥîreq. For example, if the preposition לְ (to) is prefixed to the name שְׁמוּאֵל (Samuel), two shewas would come together to produce *לְשְׁמוּאֵל. However, לִשְׁמוּאֵל lišmûʾēl is written instead. Shewa is now silent, closing the first syllable.


So does it "remain vocal" (Weingreen) or become "now silent" (Ross)? The two authors openly contradict each other, and they're even using the same example. (Pratico and van Pelt agrees with Ross.)

On p. 47 Weingreen has a frustratingly terse comment that "a vowel may be elided, but not a syllable." I take this to mean that an open syllable will always be open, and if it undergoes elision, the vowel becomes vocal shewa at the very least, which would support his example, but then I have to explain:

בְּרָכָה

בִּרְבַּת

The daghesh lene in kaph in the construct state clearly shows it's occurring after a closed syllable, and yet this goes completely without comment.

User avatar
księżycowy
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 12624
Joined: 2006-09-13, 23:51
Real Name: Paweł
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby księżycowy » 2017-04-13, 20:26

Yeah, that's part of the issue with the rules for pronunciation with Biblical Hebrew.

I have Kittel, et al. and Lambdin as textbook resources. Both of which admit to taking some short cuts with pronunciation. I think it was Lambdin who said that "it is completely immaterial to understanding the language and to translation..." He also indicated that scholars can't agree on the pronunciation of the shewa, as your quotes exemplify.

So, pick a school of thought on the pronunciation of shewas and go with it, I guess.

I also have Gesenius and Joüon (updated by Muraoka) sitting around. Out of curiosity, I'll see what they say. :P
Last edited by księżycowy on 2017-04-15, 14:12, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
księżycowy
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 12624
Joined: 2006-09-13, 23:51
Real Name: Paweł
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby księżycowy » 2017-04-13, 20:48

Joüon basically agrees with what I outlined above, and Muraoka adds the Modern Israeli pronunciation as well. It's basically summed up as either way, pronouncing a shewa or not pronouncing one, is ok. I have yet to decipher Gesenius' explanation.

HoneyBuzzard
Posts: 468
Joined: 2009-04-18, 11:08

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby HoneyBuzzard » 2017-04-15, 5:27

Thank you for the clarification. I thought that might be the case, but I didn't want to assume the authors didn't really know. I wish they would have said as much instead of presenting inconsistent rules though.

User avatar
księżycowy
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 12624
Joined: 2006-09-13, 23:51
Real Name: Paweł
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby księżycowy » 2017-04-15, 14:15

Not a problem!

As a side note, it's noted that the pronunciation outlined above is from an 18th(?) Century Hebrew scholar, who's name escapes me at the moment. So it's been a debated subject for a while I guess.

User avatar
Drink
Posts: 118
Joined: 2017-05-03, 18:46
Gender: male
Location: New England
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby Drink » 2017-05-05, 0:16

Before anyone can answer this question, you need to ask yourself: Why do you need to know?

If the answer is that you just need a way to pronounce the words for yourself, then I recommend going with the basic principle of Modern Hebrew, which is that you don't pronounce it unless the word would be difficult to pronounce without it (the actual rules of how it's pronounced in Modern Hebrew are more complicated, but that's OK if you're not actually learning Modern Hebrew).

If the answer is that you want to pronounce the words the way the Tiberian Masoretes pronounced them, then you're out of luck, because we don't really know much about how they actually pronounced them. If you want to know more about how much we don't know, I recommend Joel Hoffman's In the Beginning: A Short History of the Hebrew Language.

If the answer is that you want to better understand Hebrew morphology, then we need to forget about the two issues of how you should pronounce them and how they were actually pronounced, and then we can continue on to answer your real question:

Firstly, there are actually three types of שוא shva:

  • שוא נע shva na: literally "mobile shva", because it "moves" from being a full vowel to being a shva (this is the one that most people would say is "vocal", but we don't care about this because we've forgotten about the issue of how it was actually pronounced)
  • שוא נח shva nach: literally "resting shva", because it doesn't "move", but is always a shva (this is the one most people would say is "silent", but we don't care about this because we've forgotten about the issue of how it was actually pronounced)
  • שוא מרחף shva merachef: literally "floating shva", because it has some properties of each of the other two above (this is the one that all the debate is about, but again we don't care about this because we've forgotten about the issue of how it was actually pronounced)

An important thing to remember is that identifying the types of shva can require putting together bits and pieces of knowledge of the phonology, morphology, lexicon, and historical development of Hebrew, and that isn't always enough; sometimes you just have to recognize that it cannot be determined. This is why there is no definitive explanation.

Also keep in mind that all these rules have exceptions.

Now, we can get into the properties of these types of shva and some ways you can identify them. To make things easier, in transliterations I will indicate the shva na with a schwa character (ə), the shva merachef with a superscript schwa (ᵊ), and the shva nach with nothing (but please don't take this to mean anything about the things we've forgotten about).

Background:
  • The shva na and the shva merachef both result from the reduction of a short vowel in an open syllable, but in slightly different ways. Basically at some point in the history of Hebrew, all short vowels in open syllables were either lengthened or reduced (or dropped in final position). In the simple case, the reduction results in a shva na:
    • מָקוֹם ("place"): māqōm < *maqōm(i)
    • מְקוֹמוֹת ("places"): məqōmōṯ < *maqōmōt(i)
    But when there are two short-open syllables in a row and the first one is supposed to be reduced, if the second one is lengthened, the first one is reduced as usual to a shva na, but if the second one is reduced, it closes the first syllable, blocking it from reduction, and so the first vowel remains short, while the second one becomes a shva merachef:
    • מְלָכִים ("kings"): məlāḵīm < *malakīm(a)1
    • מַלְכֵי ("kings of"): malᵊḵē < *malakay1
  • The shva nach is found between consonants in a consonant cluster where there never was a vowel to begin with. However, when the consonant cluster formerly occurred at the end of a word, it is broken up by the insertion of a vowel (these words are often called segolates, because this vowel is usually a segol, depending on the consonants involved). This vowel is never stressed, and reverts back to a shva nach when a suffix is added to the word:
    • מֶלֶךְ2 ("king"): méleḵ < *malk(i)1
    • מַלְכִּי ("my king"): malkī < *malkī1

The בגדכפ"ת letters:
  • After shva na and shva merachef, these letters are fricatievs (there is no dagesh qal), because there used to be a vowel there (see the examples in the previous section).
  • After shva nach, these letters are plosives (there is a dagesh qal), because there never was a vowel there (see the examples in the previous section).

Syllable structure:
  • A shva na does not close the preceding syllable. It can be counted either as its own syllable or as part of the next syllable (take your pick, it really makes no difference):
    • אָכְלָה3 ("she ate"): ʾāḵəlā < *ʾakalat, syllabification: ʾā-ḵə-lā or ʾā-ḵəlā
  • A shva nach or a shva merachef closes the preceding syllable:
    • אָכְלָה3 ("eat!"): ʾoḵᵊlā < *ʾukula, syllabification: ʾoḵᵊ-lā
    • אָכְלָה3 ("food"): ʾoḵlā < *ʾuklat(i), syllabification: ʾoḵ-lā

Ramifications:
  • A shva na cannot occur before another shva, because the original vowel would not have been reduced in the first place (see the rules in the "Background" section above). It is the only shva that can occur at the beginning of a word, after a dagesh chazaq, or after another shva (and this other shva can only be a shva nach):
    • דַּבְּרוּ ("speak!"): dabbərū < *dabbirū
    • אִשְׁתְּךָ ("your wife"): ʾištəḵā < *ʾištika
    • שְׁמִי ("my name"): šəmī < *šimī
  • A shva merachef can only occur after a short vowel.
    • לִשְׁמִי ("to my name"): lišᵊmī < *lišimī
  • A shva nach can only occur after a short vowel, or after a lengthened vowel in a stressed syllable:
    • קֵדְמָה ("eastward"): qḗḏmā < *qidma

Guttural rule:
  • A shva na or a shva merachef cannot occur under a guttural, because it would always be replaced with a chataf vowel:
    • בָּעֲלוּ ("they had dominion over"): bāʿălū < *baʿalū (would have been a shva na)
    • בַּעֲלֵי ("masters of"): baʿălē < *baʿalay (would have been a shva merachef)
  • A shva nach under a guttural can sometimes become a chataf vowel, but can also remain a shva nach; therefore, a shva under a guttural is always a shva nach:
    • בַּעְלִי ("my husband"): baʿlī < *baʿlī
    • נַעֲרִי ("my boy"): naʿărī < *naʿrī (would have been a shva nach)

Meteg rule:
Many naive authors of Hebrew grammars will have you believe that the meteg indicates a long vowel. This is simply not true (there are many cases where a meteg occurs on a short vowel, even on qamatz qatan). A meteg really indicates secondary stress. The rules for secondary stress are beyond my understand. But there is one rule I'm particularly sure of:
  • Secondary stress usually never occurs on a short vowel that is followed by a shva nach or shva merachef:
    • וַיִּרְא֤וּ (Genesis 6:2, "and they saw", no meteg): wayyirʾū < *wayyirʾ(ay)ū
  • Thus, usually if a vowel has a meteg and is followed by shva, then the shva is a shva na, and the vowel is long:
    • וַיִּֽרְא֣וּ (Joshua 4:14, "and they saw", meteg under chiriq): wayyīrəʾū < *wayyīraʾū
  • Remember that the vowels qamatz, chiriq, and shuruq/qubutz are all ambiguous. Qamatz can represent short o or long ā, chiriq can represent short i or long ī, and shuruq and qubutz can each represent either short u or long ū. This meteg rule can sometimes be the only way to distinguish them, as in the examples above.

A note about final shvas:
  • Sometimes a word ends in a consonant cluster or geminated consonant. This occurs when a final short vowel was reduced or dropped after the time that vowels had already been inserted into final consonant clusters. This typically occurs with the second-person feminine pronoun and singular suffix-conjugation endings, as well in the jussive and vav-consecutive prefix-conjugation forms of verbs with final radical y or w. A shva is written under the last letter in these cases:
    • אָמַרְתְּ ("you said"): ʾāmart(ə?) < *ʾamarti
    • וַיֵּשְׁתְּ ("and he drank"): wayyēšt(ə?) < *wayyišti
    Most authors treat this final shva as silent, but it is conceivable that it was meant to be pronounced. I would say you can choose to treat it as either shva nach or shva na, or just give it its own category.
  • In a special case of this, with the root ראה, the א is elided in the final consonant cluster:
    • וַיַּרְא ("and he saw"): wayyar(ə?)(ʾ?) < *wayyirʾa
    It is even less clear how exactly to interpret this because of the additional question of whether the glottal stop is meant to be pronounced.

Notable exceptions:
  • שְׁתַּיִם ("two") < *šintaym(i): This can be interpreted as either štáyim, šətáyim, or šəttáyim. Each makes sense in its own way, and each breaks unbreakable rules.
  • וֶהְיֵה ("and be"): The shva here either breaks the guttural rule, or the chataf segol that would have been a shva na irregularly turns into a shva nach. Then when you take into account that this is (always?) spelled with a meteg under the segol, you may end up thinking the ה was dropped. Who knows really.

There is probably a lot more I could say, but my brain is all dried out thinking about this.

________________________________
Notes:
  1. Segolate nouns like מלך actually have different stems in the singular and in the plural, the singular stem having been originally *malk- and the plural stem having been originally *malak-. This is why the plural is מְלָכִים məlāḵīm rather than מַלְכִּים malkīm.
  2. A shva is always written on the final letter ך when it has no vowel. This shva should probably be ignored completely, being just an orthographic quirk of this particular letter, while other letters in this position would not have a shva (compare also the squiggle in the final form of the equivalent Arabic letter ك). But it is also possible that in the pronunciation of the Tiberian Masoretes, final ך was always followed by some sort of vowel sound.
  3. These three words have the exact same vocalization. The only way to tell them apart is to know what they are. This is one of the reasons there are no definitive rules for identifying shvas.
Last edited by Drink on 2017-05-05, 21:07, edited 4 times in total.
שתה וגם גמליך אשקה

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10587
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby mōdgethanc » 2017-05-05, 4:45

If the answer is that you want to pronounce the words the way the Tiberian Masoretes pronounced them, then you're out of luck, because we don't really know much about how they actually pronounced them.
We don't? I thought there was broad agreement on how it was pronounced, aside from a few unclear points like the exact realization of /r/ and of course, the complicated rules for shwa.

Lemanensis
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-09-09, 13:09
Real Name: Martin Ecott
Gender: male
Location: Geneva
Country: CH Switzerland (Schweiz / Suisse / Svizzera / Svizra)
Contact:

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby Lemanensis » 2017-05-05, 11:17

Amazing. I'm just finishing a course in Hebrew morphology (exams in 2 weeks), and I couldn't explain it that well!
:-(
Martin
http://www.hebrew.ecott.ch <= catalogue of resources for learning Modern Hebrew

User avatar
księżycowy
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 12624
Joined: 2006-09-13, 23:51
Real Name: Paweł
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby księżycowy » 2017-05-05, 16:36

Lemanensis wrote:Amazing. I'm just finishing a course in Hebrew morphology (exams in 2 weeks), and I couldn't explain it that well!
:-(

Yes indeed. That was quite well put, and goes a lot deeper then I was able to go.
I'm curious, what sources have you used, Drink? I'd like to explore this for myself. I understand you are pulling from more then just the phonological sections of your sources too.

User avatar
Drink
Posts: 118
Joined: 2017-05-03, 18:46
Gender: male
Location: New England
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby Drink » 2017-05-05, 21:35

mōdgethanc wrote:
If the answer is that you want to pronounce the words the way the Tiberian Masoretes pronounced them, then you're out of luck, because we don't really know much about how they actually pronounced them.
We don't? I thought there was broad agreement on how it was pronounced, aside from a few unclear points like the exact realization of /r/ and of course, the complicated rules for shwa.

I notice you conveniently left out of your quote of my post what could possibly be an answer to your question. It's really a fascinating book and I highly recommend it. There are many other points of uncertainty that you didn't mention. I could list them, but that would be off topic. The main point I was trying to make there was that these complicated rules for shva that I outlined probably have nothing to do with how the Tiberians actually pronounced the shvas that they wrote. Or, of course, maybe they did have something to do with it. No one really knows.


Lemanensis wrote:Amazing. I'm just finishing a course in Hebrew morphology (exams in 2 weeks), and I couldn't explain it that well!
:-(

Thanks :)


księżycowy wrote:
Lemanensis wrote:Amazing. I'm just finishing a course in Hebrew morphology (exams in 2 weeks), and I couldn't explain it that well!
:-(

Yes indeed. That was quite well put, and goes a lot deeper then I was able to go.
I'm curious, what sources have you used, Drink? I'd like to explore this for myself. I understand you are pulling from more then just the phonological sections of your sources too.

I didn't consult any sources while writing this post. Well, except for a dictionary, concordance search, and reliable Bible text in order to help me find examples.

To give you a bibliography of all the books and papers I've read about Hebrew would be more difficult than writing this post. Not because there were so many of them, but because I simply can't remember. Everything I know has come from a variety of different kinds of places and constant interest. As a Jew, Hebrew has a special meaning to me. And so I make it a part of my day to listen to Hebrew music and podcasts, to try to read the news in Hebrew, to study Jewish texts (in the original), and to experience Hebrew in real life, whether in a synagogue, in Israel, or both. And I like to take in all the details. It also doesn't hurt that I've studied Arabic, Aramaic, and other Semitic languages and have a knack for comparative linguistics.

The trick is, read more Hebrew, pay attention to details, and don't leave questions unanswered. Nothing is ever "just because". Everything has a reason, and if you want to master the details of the language, you need to make it your business to find that reason.
שתה וגם גמליך אשקה

User avatar
księżycowy
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 12624
Joined: 2006-09-13, 23:51
Real Name: Paweł
Country: US United States (United States)
Contact:

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby księżycowy » 2017-05-05, 23:29

I was just curious if you used an particular resources to get that information. It's absolutely fine if you don't remember. I certain don't expect anyone to give me a full bibliography for anything. I was just looking for a few examples at best.

As for something being "just because", while nothing is "just because", some things are lost to the passage of time.

I know I'm not an expert on Hebrew, and surely I wll gain more knowledge to the workings of Hebrew as I come to know more about it, I'm ok with a scholar telling me in a beginning textbook that I don't need to wrack my brain to figure out why shewas occur where they do. I can always do that as I progress.

barny
Posts: 8
Joined: 2017-05-30, 13:06
Real Name: barny

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby barny » 2017-05-30, 13:13

A definitive resource would be you get a Feldheim Tanach Simanim.

That has shva marked whether it's vocal or silent. Bold for vocal.

A silent shva is the end of an existing syllable.

A vocal shva could be said to start a new syllable or some would say it counts as a half syllable preceding the next syllable).

The feldheim tanach simanim also marks when a kamatz is a kamatz katan too.

barny
Posts: 8
Joined: 2017-05-30, 13:06
Real Name: barny

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby barny » 2017-05-30, 14:48

I'm actually confused with one of the examples that the original poster used.

קֵ֔דְמָה (Leviticus (VaYikra) 1:16) Kaydma


So there's a Tsere under the Kuf. Tsere is a long vowel. So why isn't the shva sounded?


Let's take the example of VeShamru(Ex 31:16). It's a vocal shva.. Because the kamatz under the shin is not in a closed unaccented syllable, because while the syllabie with the kamatz is indeed closed, there is an accent , a meteg on the shin, so the kamatz is long. And the shva on the mem is thus vocal. Because the preceding vowel was long.

For some reason this simpler case.. has a silent shva. (According to my feldheim tanach simanim)

Kaydma.. A long vowel, then a silent shva!! Why?!

User avatar
Drink
Posts: 118
Joined: 2017-05-03, 18:46
Gender: male
Location: New England
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby Drink » 2017-05-30, 15:49

barny wrote:A definitive resource would be you get a Feldheim Tanach Simanim.


This may be a great resource, but I would not call it definitive. There is debate both among secular scholars and among Jewish religious scholars on the details of the shva and qamatz (there is no written masora to distinguish them, only Sephardi and Yemenite reading traditions, which do not always line up with the scholarly approach). Most of the debate is around whether shva merachef is vocal or silent, so if you treat it as its own category, that you can push that debate off of grammar and onto reading traditions. Beyond that, the vast majority of cases are not controversial, but there are a few that are.

barny wrote:I'm actually confused with one of the examples that the original poster used.

קֵ֔דְמָה (Leviticus (VaYikra) 1:16) Kaydma


So there's a Tsere under the Kuf. Tsere is a long vowel. So why isn't the shva sounded?


Let's take the example of VeShamru(Ex 31:16). It's a vocal shva.. Because the kamatz under the shin is not in a closed unaccented syllable, because while the syllabie with the kamatz is indeed closed, there is an accent , a meteg on the shin, so the kamatz is long. And the shva on the mem is thus vocal. Because the preceding vowel was long.

For some reason this simpler case.. has a silent shva. (According to my feldheim tanach simanim)

Kaydma.. A long vowel, then a silent shva!! Why?!


You have your causality mixed up. Only the distinction between shva na and shva merachef is determined by the preceding vowel length. A shva nach is always a shva nach. In the case of קדמה, the vowel is long because it was lengthened under the stress, while the shva nach remained a shva nach. I mentioned this example in my answer above.
שתה וגם גמליך אשקה

barny
Posts: 8
Joined: 2017-05-30, 13:06
Real Name: barny

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby barny » 2017-05-30, 21:23

Thanks. I don't know that much about vowel lengthening but I know sometimes a segol can be lengthened to a tsere.

I looked up Kaydma in bibleworks, I see it's @Pd (Particle adverb).. I looked up all instances of the root KDM, as particle adverb, but every single occurrence is kaydma with a tsere. I know vowels can be lengthened when there's an etnachta under them.. But Kaydma is with a tsere whatever the accent. And there's no case of Kaydma not being with a tsere.

What makes you say it's lengthened?

User avatar
Drink
Posts: 118
Joined: 2017-05-03, 18:46
Gender: male
Location: New England
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby Drink » 2017-06-02, 15:51

barny wrote:Thanks. I don't know that much about vowel lengthening but I know sometimes a segol can be lengthened to a tsere.

I looked up Kaydma in bibleworks, I see it's @Pd (Particle adverb).. I looked up all instances of the root KDM, as particle adverb, but every single occurrence is kaydma with a tsere. I know vowels can be lengthened when there's an etnachta under them.. But Kaydma is with a tsere whatever the accent. And there's no case of Kaydma not being with a tsere.

What makes you say it's lengthened?


I don't mean lengthening in pausal position or between words, I mean historical lengthening. That is, when a vowel used to be short far back in the history of Hebrew and became long by the time of Biblical Hebrew. If you read the "Background" section of my post above, I explain some of the lengthening process. And if you look at where I give קדמה as an example, I show the historical development of the word.
שתה וגם גמליך אשקה

barny
Posts: 8
Joined: 2017-05-30, 13:06
Real Name: barny

Re: Hebrew Syllables with Sheva

Postby barny » 2017-06-03, 6:58

drink wrote:I don't mean lengthening in pausal position or between words, I mean historical lengthening. That is, when a vowel used to be short far back in the history of Hebrew and became long by the time of Biblical Hebrew. If you read the "Background" section of my post above, I explain some of the lengthening process. And if you look at where I give קדמה as an example, I show the historical development of the word.



How would the masoretic tradition record whether a word used to be different, and were short, before the time of biblical hebrew? I'm presuming that Feldheim are using the traditional sephardi rule for kamatz katan when they mark it. I'm aware that the modern hebrew rule for kamatz katan is different, and i'm talking strictly biblical hebrew.

You wrote "Basically at some point in the history of Hebrew, all short vowels in open syllables were either lengthened or reduced (or dropped in final position). In the simple case, the reduction results in a shva na:"

You gave the example of makom reduced to mekomot (+ there's no question re the shva at the beginning of mekomot, that it's na).

And I agree a Kamatz turning into a shva is very much a reduction. And can happen when words take a form that involves more syllables. Makom. Mekomot.

But I don't see why you describe Kamatz as a short vowel in an open syllable. If Makom used to be something like Mekom(which I don't think you're saying), then that's nothing to do with why Mekomot is mekomot.. Or do you mean it used to be a patach in makom, then got lengthened to a kamatz? Though still I don't see how that would impact mekomot, where the first vowel gets reduced because it's more syllables.

Looking at what you wrote for the background and history of Kaydma

You wrote "A shva nach can only occur after a short vowel, or after a lengthened vowel in a stressed syllable:
קֵדְמָה ("eastward"): qḗḏmā < *qidma"

I know some IPA, like many on this list, where one can click and hear them http://cmed.faculty.ku.edu/ipafolder/vowels.html
(edit- I think the above link may have 'i' wrong.. The link misses the colon. Drink spotted what I meant, but i'll correct this post for readability, and also as I think drink suggested, i'll use forward slashes instead of square brackets, so it doesn't get misinterpreted by the forum engine as eg opening tag of italics. capital /I/ is like 'hit', and lowercase i with a colon, is ee /i:/ With this post, i'm just fixing the presentation of this post, nothing more re this post)

I have no idea what this sound is ḗ (e with horizontal line over it and a dash over the horizontal line). And I don't know what 'a' with a horizontal line over it is either. And I don't know what you mean with the "<" symbol. Or the asterisk.

I know that in IPA /i:/is a long form of chirik like ee street. And capital 'i', /I/ is a short form of chirik like zit. (Though a sephardi I know wouldn't distinguish two forms of chirik, just ih.. and Israelis likewise also just do one sound that is between the two and closer to the shorter 'i' the /I/ in Hit but higher and sharper). Though I doubt that you mean to convey that there was at some point a long chirik in qidma like the word 'street'?

Regards
Last edited by barny on 2017-06-05, 17:59, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Hebrew (עברית)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest