קטונתי QATONTIY

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.
Post Reply
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

קטונתי QATONTIY

Post by Isaac Fried »

I have noticed today that in Gen. 32:11(10), the unusual form QATON-TIY, 'I am not worthy', from the root קטן QTN, is punctuated with a dagesh in the letter ת T of the attached personal pronoun ATIY = ANIY, 'I'. Isn't this dagesh misplaced? The dagesh in the letter T of the word עברתי ABAR-TIY, 'passed over', in the same verse, appears to me justified by the patax under the letter B, but QATON-TIY is with a xolam!

Isaac Fried, Boston University
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: קטונתי QATONTIY

Post by Jason Hare »

Isaac Fried wrote:I have noticed today that in Gen. 32:11(10), the unusual form QATON-TIY, 'I am not worthy', from the root קטן QTN, is punctuated with a dagesh in the letter ת T of the attached personal pronoun ATIY = ANIY, 'I'. Isn't this dagesh misplaced? The dagesh in the letter T of the word עברתי ABAR-TIY, 'passed over', in the same verse, appears to me justified by the patax under the letter B, but QATON-TIY is with a xolam!

Isaac Fried, Boston University
In an accented syllable, such as in /qa-TON-ti/, a long vowel is permitted even if the syllable is closed. The sheva that closes the syllable is silent, and silent sheva is followed by the hard version of the begedkefet letters according to standard Massoretic pointing. This is the second instance of this type of claim that I have found today in reading over the posts on the forum in which you claim to have found a problem with the Massoretic pointing regarding dagesh, and yet those who study biblical Hebrew in university learn these things in the first semester of study. I understand that you want to undercut traditional approaches to the pointing and use your "personal pronouns are everything" approach, but it seems to me that you haven't yet even mastered the pointing system well enough to hold out valid arguments against it.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: קטונתי QATONTIY

Post by Isaac Fried »

1. A syllable is a syllable only if you make it so.

2. A syllable is accented only if you accent it.

3. A vowel is long only if you elongate it.

4. A syllable is closed only if you close it.

5. A shva is silent only if you silence it.

6. There is no problem with the Massoretic pointing, except that they occasionally overruled an earlier reading tradition hinted at by the dagesh. It is, in my opinion, very important to understand this.

Isaac Fried Boston University
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: קטונתי QATONTIY

Post by Jason Hare »

Isaac Fried wrote:1. A syllable is a syllable only if you make it so.

2. A syllable is accented only if you accent it.

3. A vowel is long only if you elongate it.

4. A syllable is closed only if you close it.

5. A shva is silent only if you silence it.

6. There is no problem with the Massoretic pointing, except that they occasionally overruled an earlier reading tradition hinted at by the dagesh. It is, in my opinion, very important to understand this.

Isaac Fried Boston University
Very enlightening. In other words, a letter is a letter if you call it so. A book is a book only if you bind it and call it a book. A table is a table only if you call it a table. This was probably the most helpful post I've ever seen. Thanks so much.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: קטונתי QATONTIY

Post by Isaac Fried »

The point is that I firmly believe that the dot in the Hebrew letter is not (is not!) part of the נקוד, the punctuation, but was rather introduced as a reading hint way before the "Masoretes", or the NAQDANIYM devised their external, over and under the letter, vowel marking system.
Occasionally, the NAQDANIYM appear to have overruled the dagesh hint to replace it by their own tradition. Otherwise, how does one explain the lack of dagesh in the letter K of MALKEY
מַלְכֵי עַמִּים מִמֶּנָּה יִהְיוּ
of Gen. 17:16, as opposed to MALKIY
לְהָשִׁיב אֶת מַלְכִּי
of 2Sam. 19:44?
And how does one account for the dagesh in the letter G of W-YA-XOG-U
 יָחוֹגּוּ וְיָנוּעוּ כַּשִּׁכּוֹר
of Ps. 107:27?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: קטונתי QATONTIY

Post by Jason Hare »

Isaac Fried wrote:The point is that I firmly believe that the dot in the Hebrew letter is not (is not!) part of the נקוד, the punctuation, but was rather introduced as a reading hint way before the "Masoretes", or the NAQDANIYM devised their external, over and under the letter, vowel marking system.
Occasionally, the NAQDANIYM appear to have overruled the dagesh hint to replace it by their own tradition. Otherwise, how does one explain the lack of dagesh in the letter K of MALKEY
מַלְכֵי עַמִּים מִמֶּנָּה יִהְיוּ
of Gen. 17:16, as opposed to MALKIY
לְהָשִׁיב אֶת מַלְכִּי
of 2Sam. 19:44?
And how does one account for the dagesh in the letter G of W-YA-XOG-U
 יָחוֹגּוּ וְיָנוּעוּ כַּשִּׁכּוֹר
of Ps. 107:27?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
We are, then, at an impasse. You, a native speaker of modern Hebrew, find yourself in a quagmire out of which successful students of biblical make their way within their first year of study – indeed, within the first semester! Because of your presuppositions – that דגש חזק does not represent a doubled letters, that there is no difference between שווא נע and שווא נח, etc. – you will reject a priori any possible explanation that I would give to you. You have painted yourself into a corner by eliminating meaningful bits of the linguistic tradition and then you are left trying to explain things that are very easily explained according to the traditional system. It is your own refusal to admit to the existence of different types of שווא and דגש that creates the problems that you are trying to explain in so many mental contortions.

What makes you take the position that you do when it clearly doesn't come from the evidence of what we have in the text of the Massoretic Bible?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: קטונתי QATONTIY

Post by Isaac Fried »

Actually, a schwa מונע MUNA, the willful replacement of a schwa by an E, is common in spoken Hebrew, done to distinguish a radical letter from an adhered fraction. For instance, the whole world כולי עלמא says בְּרוך BROK (from Yiddish, related to the English 'break'), 'a calamity', but בֶּרוֹך BE-ROK, 'with tenderness'.

Isaac Fried Boston University
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: קטונתי QATONTIY

Post by Jason Hare »

Isaac Fried wrote:Actually, a schwa מונע MUNA, the willful replacement of a schwa by an E, is common in spoken Hebrew, done to distinguish a radical letter from an adhered fraction. For instance, the whole world כולי עלמא says בְּרוך BROK (from Yiddish, related to the English 'break'), 'a calamity', but בֶּרוֹך BE-ROK, 'with tenderness'.

Isaac Fried Boston University
OK.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Post Reply