Gen. 2:4, חטף-פתח hateph-pathah

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Gen. 2:4, חטף-פתח hateph-pathah

Post by Isaac Fried »

ducky writes
A grammatical Mobile Sheva is any Sheva that is derived from a vowel.
(but a Sheva can be mobile also from other reasons)
This is no clear to me. What Sheva is "derived" (and how?) from a vowel? Example?
Once you connect a Sheva to the next letter, it is mobile. It doesn't matter if you read it as "o", "a", "e" or just "run with it" (zero-vowel) - all of these styles are mobile.
This is also not clear to me. How do you "connect" a Sheva to the next letter? Example?
I read מנורה as MNORAH, not MeNORAH.
But let's take a theoretical word. שְׁצוּפָה
would you not mobilize the ש in this case?
No, I would read it as $CUPAH. The reading $eCUPAH means אשר צוּפָה.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
ducky
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Gen. 2:4, חטף-פתח hateph-pathah

Post by ducky »

Hello Isaac,
Isaac Fried wrote:This is no clear to me. What Sheva is "derived" (and how?) from a vowel? Example?
(in this post I will sign the Mobile Sheva in the sign: *)

Every Sheva that, let's say' the grammar books call it Mobile, it means that it was derived from a vowel.

The Sheva is not an original Semitic thing. It is a vowel that got shorter (to half-vowel).

So let's look at a word like שלום=shalOm
when you want to say "my shalom", you don't say "shalomi", right?
You say: sh*lomi
So the vowel "a" after the "sh" (sha) got shorter to "sh*"
the Sheva in the word שלומי derived from the short vowel "a" of "shalom"

Another example:
she gave birth = ילדה=yal*dA(h)
if you check it pausal form it would be: yalAda
(I wrote a capital letter to sign the accented vowel)
The pausal form represents the old pronunciation before the mobile Sheva got into Hebrew.
So here, you can see that the Mobile Sheva of "yal*da" derived from the second "a" of "yalada".
Isaac Fried wrote:This is also not clear to me. How do you "connect" a Sheva to the next letter? Example?
Once again, I'm sorry for being not understood.
by" connect to the next letter" I mean the way you pronounce it (as with no-vowel)
Isaac Fried wrote:I read מנורה as MNORAH, not MeNORAH.
My friend, I wish you would make an effort to walk with me.
if מנורה is not a good example for you, so try מכונה=mekhona.
It is hard for me to believe that you pronounce it "mkhona"
and if you do, then pick another word.
I don't know you, and all I can do is to use words according to the common people pronunciation.
Isaac Fried wrote:No, I would read it as $CUPAH. The reading $eCUPAH means אשר צוּפָה.
If you make an effort to pronounce words according to the system you believe in, then surely you force yourself.

I'll give you a regular word like שזופה
some people pronounce it $zufa
and some pronounce it $ezufa

the point that I'm trying to make here, that this case of a mobile Sheva that is pronounced with no vowel doesn't concern the grammar rules.
but it is about the comfort of the pronunciation of the speakers.

you can pronounce the words however you wish, and so can others, and no-one will criticize you for that as long you are understood.
But when it comes to grammar, these Shevas are the same.

(I don't know how strict the Ashkenazis are when it comes to the public reading of the Bible, as in the synagogue, but in the Sephardic and the Yemenite readings, the Mobile Sheva is pronounced as it should (Sephardic: "e"; Yemenite: "a")
David Hunter
Jason Hare
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Gen. 2:4, חטף-פתח hateph-pathah

Post by Jason Hare »

Isaac Fried wrote:This is no clear to me. What Sheva is "derived" (and how?) from a vowel? Example?
The standard nomenclature in English is to say that the vocal sheva represents a vowel reduction.

As David ("ducky") provided the example of שָׁלוֹם, in which the first syllable reduces to sheva when suffixes are appended (שְׁלוֹמְךָ), and שָׁזוּף, in which the first syllable is reduced to sheva when adjectival endings are added for number and gender (שְׁזוּפִים). That initial sheva represents the reduction of kamats (technically, the reduction of the a-quality vowel, which was short in its historical setting).

An excellent treatment of the theory behind orthography and the reduction or retention of vowels in nouns is provided in Karl Kutz and Rebekah Josberger's new Learning Biblical Hebrew (Lexham: 2018), chapter 5.

Simply claiming that nothing exists but pronouns interspersed within root letters does not make it so. There is enough good material about Hebrew morphology and incidence today to rule your theory out hands-down. You simply ignore anything that doesn't confirm your "findings."
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Jason Hare
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Gen. 2:4, חטף-פתח hateph-pathah

Post by Jason Hare »

ducky wrote:the point that I'm trying to make here, that this case of a mobile Sheva that is pronounced with no vowel doesn't concern the grammar rules.
but it is about the comfort of the pronunciation of the speakers.
Absolutely right.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Gen. 2:4, חטף-פתח hateph-pathah

Post by Isaac Fried »

ducky writes
(in this post I will sign the Mobile Sheva in the sign: *)
The sign * still means nothing to me.
The Sheva is not an original Semitic thing. It is a vowel that got shorter (to half-vowel).
I sorry to say it David but you you are sliding now into the off world of the legends. "an original Semitic thing"?
So let's look at a word like שלום=shalOm
when you want to say "my shalom", you don't say "shalomi", right?
You say: sh*lomi
So the vowel "a" after the "sh" (sha) got shorter to "sh*"
the Sheva in the word שלומי derived from the short vowel "a" of "shalom"
It is better to write Hebrew words in Hebrew letters and with niqud. The word שָלוֹם is indeed written with a qamatz, while the word שְלוֹמִי is written with a schwa. But, still it is not sh*lomi, (which I even don't recognize as to its meaning), but shlomi. I have never heard it being said shelomi, even with a "half-vowel". If you prefer to call such a "derived" schwa a "grammatical schwa mobile", then you have the right to do so. You may name anything as anything לכוּלם שמוֹת יקרא.
If you make an effort to pronounce words according to the system you believe in, then surely you force yourself.
Yes, I do force myself to speak, especially while reading the Tanakh in public, good and beautiful Hebrew. No e-e for a schwa.
In conclusion I may say that we are in agreement: you keep reading שְלוֹמִי as sh*lomi, and I will keep reading שְלוֹמִי as shlomi and שלוֹם על ישראל.
As to the "grammatical" schwa "mobile", we will leave it to the "grammarians".
By the way, is the A of שלום "short"? Do you really shorten it in speech?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Gen. 2:4, חטף-פתח hateph-pathah

Post by Isaac Fried »

Jason writes
An excellent treatment of the theory behind orthography and the reduction or retention of vowels in nouns is provided in Karl Kutz and Rebekah Josberger's new Learning Biblical Hebrew (Lexham: 2018), chapter 5.
I am sure there is always "an excellent treatment" for anything, as in particular for "the theory behind orthography and the reduction or retention of vowels in nouns"
I will keep this in mind any time I am confronted by the "reduction" or the "retention" of "vowels in nouns".

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Gen. 2:4, חטף-פתח hateph-pathah

Post by Isaac Fried »

ducky writes
As for מחבת - this is actually a silent Sheva that the throaty ח naturally create a tiny vowel.
I am not sure what "a tiny vowel" is.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
ducky
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Gen. 2:4, חטף-פתח hateph-pathah

Post by ducky »

Isaac Fried wrote:The sign * still means nothing to me.
Just a sign that I put in the place of where the Sheva is located.
when there is a Qamats or Patah' - I write "a".
when there is a Segol or Tsere - I write "e".
and so on...
When there is a Mobile Sheva - I write *.
When I write it, it is not about pronunciation, Only to sign that in that place there is a Mobile Sheva.
Isaac Fried wrote:I sorry to say it David but you are sliding now into the off-world of the legends. "an original Semitic thing"?
For you, it may be a world of legends.
Please focus.
The Mobile Sheva is a vowel that got shorter when the stress of the word "jumped forward"
let's take the word "Son"=בן=ben.
it has a regular vowel Tsere = בֵּן
when you say "my son" - it should have been "ben+i = beni", right?
as בֵּנִי
but the stress jumped forward
bEn-->bEni-->benI
now the stress in on the next syllable, and so the Tsere turns to a half vowel - Mobile Sheva
bEn-->bEni-->b*nI
Isaac Fried wrote:It is better to write Hebrew words in Hebrew letters and with Niqud. The word שָלוֹם is indeed written with a kamatz, while the word שְלוֹמִי is written with a schwa. But, still it is not sh*lomi, (which I even don't recognize as to its meaning), but Shlomi. I have never heard it being said shelomi, even with a "half-vowel". If you prefer to call such a "derived" schwa a "grammatical schwa mobile", then you have the right to do so. You may name anything as anything לכוּלם שמוֹת יקרא.
Once again, you are talking about pronunciation, that each one has its own.
Your name is Isaac - but the word is יצחק
does that fact that you don't pronounce the throat letter Het mean that it doesn't exist?
It is just your way of pronunciation.
I also say "shlomi"
but this fact does not contradict the fact that the Sheva in the Letter Shin is a Mobile Sheva that was derived from a vowel.

Don't confuse the grammar with the pronunciation.
Isaac Fried wrote:Yes, I do force myself to speak, especially while reading the Tanakh in public, good and beautiful Hebrew. No e-e for a schwa.
What seems to you as beautiful may seem to others as ugly, and vice versa.
Isaac Fried wrote:By the way, is the A of שלום "short"? Do you really shorten it in speech?
Historically, it is short, and that why it turned to a Mobile Sheva (the short vowels are unstable).
Hebrew "gave up" on the short and long vowels, and instead of that, it has more vowels.

In Arabic, for example, there are only three vowels
a-i-u
and each one of them can be long or short.
Hebrew has more vowel (the Tiberian: 7; Yemenite: 6; Sephardi: 5)
and they replaced the "long and short vowels" system.

So as for your question. the Qamats in Shalon (and every Qamats) was not pronounced like the Patah'.
It was something like the English "o" in the word "hot" or "Bob".

But today we follow another tradition of Hebrew, which doesn't really have the Qamats - and it is like a Patah'.
And ask yourself the question of why there is a Qamats that is pronounced as "a", and a Qamats that is pronounced like "o".
When you realize that, you would understand your pronunciation of the Qamats.
David Hunter
Jason Hare
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Gen. 2:4, חטף-פתח hateph-pathah

Post by Jason Hare »

Isaac Fried wrote:Jason writes
An excellent treatment of the theory behind orthography and the reduction or retention of vowels in nouns is provided in Karl Kutz and Rebekah Josberger's new Learning Biblical Hebrew (Lexham: 2018), chapter 5.
I am sure there is always "an excellent treatment" for anything, as in particular for "the theory behind orthography and the reduction or retention of vowels in nouns"
I will keep this in mind any time I am confronted by the "reduction" or the "retention" of "vowels in nouns".

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Your academic acumen and openmindedness are noted in all of your posts.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
ducky
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Gen. 2:4, חטף-פתח hateph-pathah

Post by ducky »

Isaac Fried wrote:ducky writes
As for מחבת - this is actually a silent Sheva that the throaty ח naturally create a tiny vowel.
I am not sure what "a tiny vowel" is.
When someone pronounces a throaty letter with silent Sheva. he naturally mobilizes it a little bit.
That is why a lot of times when the throat letters need to be with a silent Sheva, they have a Hataph instead.
We should ask and wonder why?
if it is a silent Sheva according to the pure-grammar rules, why is it that sometimes it turns to a Hataph.
and the answer is that the Hataph comes here, as a "helping-link" that represents the natural pronunciation.
so when you say מחבת - surely you can say it with a silent Sheva.
But if you would really pronounce the Letter Het from the throat, you would be making a slight "a" sound after the Letter Het.
So this Hataph is also a "pronunciation" help - and not pure grammar.

But notice that it doesn't always happen. Letter Het comes a lot with a silent Sheva. (and letter Ayin does not).
David Hunter
Post Reply