Tsere, a hinted patah? Gen. 27:14

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan says
There's no reason to doubt the niqud, just interesting challenges as to why they pronounced things in certain ways, and when where and why we find exceptions
says I
It is not "why they pronounced things in certain ways", but why we pronounced things in certain ways.
We come upon exceptions in the niqud because of errors, omissions, overrides, controversies, clash of traditions, and disagreements between the original NAQDANIYM and the later "masoretes".
We read the ב of אַבְדָן as a V not as a B just by historical misunderstanding. The dot, or its absence, in the letter ד is, moreover, immaterial, as we read both of them now the same way.
In any event, I boldly repeat what I said before

The dagesh is not part of the niqud and has no bearing whatsoever on the vocal articulation of the written word.

No "geminations" nor other illusions. The distinction we came to make, and which is now perpetuated by the so called Hebrew Academy, between V and B, is but a historical accident, and has unpleasant repercussions for the spoken language.

Jonathan says
Syllabically, the patah is consistent with the fact that the first syllable is closed (CVC). The second syllable is closed as well (CVC), and the patah is lengthened to qametz because it ends a clause.
Says I
It is not clear to me how "the patah is lengthened to qametz". I am actually mystified by this "legthening". I myself am reading the patah and the qametz exactly the same way with no apparent injury to the language. The claim that the qametz is "broad" is, I am afraid, no more that a manufactured myth.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

Isaac says,
I can not bring myself to believe that Hebrew contains empty, meaningless sounds. Hebrew is replete with meanings and nuances.

Says I,
Your second statement does not entail the first.

Isaac says,
It seems obvious to me, and it was always so, that the vowels I U (A is merely for sucking and expelling air) are,
...and
The merit of "my theory" rests on its face value; on its perfect inner logic and apparent truth. It ultimately simplifies and totally rationalizes Hebrew grammar. It takes Hebrew grammar into one sentence:

Says I,
1. The very idea that A has no meaning is 1) ad hoc, thus your simplicity is complicated by an ad hoc argument that dismisses the A.
2. If A is meaningless than you have a self-defeating argument.
3. Modern speakers of Hebrew speak it like we speak English with no thought to how a noun came into its current form. That is what etymologists do. Speakers don't.

Says I,

It would make more sense to discover what the yod in היא means, and what the waw in הוא.
This is what is most troubling about your theory:
1. the unpointed reading of these pronouns is obviously Hiya and Hua.
2. thus you are first pressed to explain the presence of the yod in one and the waw in the other.
3. the verb forms and nouns preceded the existence of היא. The Torah is arguably written at an earlier stage when the Hebrews had one common singular pronoun. The yod(s) in Hiphil and Piel and Hithpael were in place before the advent of the feminine form.
4. there would be no correlation between the supposed insertion of pronouns and the intended goal, such as causation (Hiphil) or stativeness (Pael), or reflexiveness (Hithpael), or passivity (pual).
Jonathan Mohler

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan says
Modern speakers of Hebrew speak it like we speak English with no thought to how a noun came into its current form. That is what etymologists do. Speakers don't.
Says I
Fluent speech is indeed too rapid and too intuition driven for an instantaneous parallel background analysis, but if you pause to think of it, you will surely hear the קול דממה דקה of the visceral whispering of the Hebrew as it was first created. English speakers do not hear anymore this fundamental role the vowels play in the grammar; it actually does not even remotely intrude upon their mind, because English (as well as the other IE languages) has long lost its entire root system, and with it, the "primitive" inner logic and sheer beauty of the natural grammar of the primeval tongue. This is why I say that what is touted today as the all encompassing "linguistics", is in fact but a narrow putative "Englishtics".

It never occurred to me otherwise (even at tender age, much before I turned myself into an "etymologist"), but that the הֻ of, say, הֻשְׁלַךְ is the הוּא, he, who was cast away. I am sure that every speaker of Hebrew, on some level of consciousness or another, is aware of this. I can not see how it can be otherwise.

In another invented verbal construction the U, for הוּא, is moved forward into the root to produce the equivalent שֻׁלַּח = ש-הוּא-לח 'he was sent away'. What can be more obvious than that? The U is moved, by some linguistically astute Semitic tribe, further down the root to produce שָׁלוּחַ ש-ל-הוּא-ח'(he is an) emissary', and then, for a change, שָׁלִיחַ של-היא-ח '(he is a) messanger'.
In the plural form, the U (possibly even a double UU for 'many') is relegated to the end: שָלְחוּ = שלח-הוּא, the form שלחם = שלח-הם being avoided to escape a semantic conflict with '(he) has sent them away'. Indeed, שְׁלָחוּהוּ = שלח-הוא-הוא is 'they (הם) have sent him away'. On the other hand, שְׁלָחוֹ = שלח-הוא is '(he) has sent him', as in שֶׁלוֹ = של-הוּא, 'his', to distinguish from שָׁלוּ = של-הוא, 'they have pulled up'.

I look with amazement at how elegantly and completely this childish "theory" of mine; the theory of the attached and inserted pronouns, solves the terrible, looming, "enigma" of both the Hebrew verbal and nominal systems.

Jonathan says
It would make more sense to discover what the yod in היא means, and what the waw in הוא.
This is what is most troubling about your theory:
1. the unpointed reading of these pronouns is obviously Hiya and Hua.
2. thus you are first pressed to explain the presence of the yod in one and the waw in the other.
Says I
I agree that possibly, the compounded, היא is descended from HAYAH and הוא from HAWAH. Related to it are בא 'be', and הבה 'let us'. How the yod and waw became reading markers צריך עיון.

Jonathan says
The yod(s) in Hiphil and Piel and Hithpael were in place before the advent of the feminine form.
Says I
Yes!!! היא and הוא are fully interchangeable for variety, to alternatively identify the doer or the beneficiary of the act, independent of gender. Here: שֻׁלַּח = ש-הוּא-לח is 'he was sent', but שִׁלַּח = שׁ-היא-לח is 'he has sent'.
In spoken Hebrew (in BH as well, as in חיזק and החזיק) the (actually equivalent) different constructions (בנינים) are used to produce related mutants, say השתיק 'silenced', as opposed to שיתק 'paralyzed'.

Jonathan says
there would be no correlation between the supposed insertion of pronouns and the intended goal, such as causation (Hiphil) or stativeness (Pael), or reflexiveness (Hithpael), or passivity (pual).
Says I
Indeed! this correlation belongs to a higher (or later) stage of imputation of sense --- of "grammaticalization", as in the earlier mentioned examples of the PUAL and the PIEL, where שֻׁלַּח = ש-הוּא-לח is 'he was sent', but שִׁלַּח = שׁ-היא-לח is 'he has sent'.

The noun is likewise constructed: סיגר 'cigar', סוּגר 'cage', גביש 'crystal', גבוּל 'border', חוֹמה 'wall', חלוֹם 'dream', etc. etc.. Here are three more relatives: כּוֹס 'cup', כִּיס 'pocket, purse', and the vulgar כּוּס.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Here is a hitpael example from Ex. 10:2: הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי = היא-את-עלל-אתי, from the root עלל = על-על, 'upon and upon, over and over'. the initial היא and את are both for God, היא את עצמו, 'he by himself'. The אתי = אני at the end identifies more precisely היאas being the speaker.
Thus, הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי is 'I brought my own weight down upon them over and over, I vexed them over and over, I annoyed them over and over'.
Compare with the עלילה 'a piled-up story, a tall tale' of Deut. 22:14
וְשָׂם לָהּ עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים וְהוֹצִא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רָע
NIV: "and slanders her and gives her a bad name"
It seems to me that 'slander' is related, on the one hand to 'slant', and on the other hand to 'scale, mount, fall upon', as in 'scandal', Hebrew סקנדל.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

Jonathan says
There's no reason to doubt the niqud, just interesting challenges as to why they pronounced things in certain ways, and when where and why we find exceptions
says I
It is not "why they pronounced things in certain ways", but why we pronounced things in certain ways.
We come upon exceptions in the niqud because of errors, omissions, overrides, controversies, clash of traditions, and disagreements between the original NAQDANIYM and the later "masoretes".
We read the ב of אַבְדָן as a V not as a B just by historical misunderstanding. The dot, or its absence, in the letter ד is, moreover, immaterial, as we read both of them now the same way.
In any event, I boldly repeat what I said before

The dagesh is not part of the niqud and has no bearing whatsoever on the vocal articulation of the written word.

No "geminations" nor other illusions. The distinction we came to make, and which is now perpetuated by the so called Hebrew Academy, between V and B, is but a historical accident, and has unpleasant repercussions for the spoken language.

Jonathan says
Syllabically, the patah is consistent with the fact that the first syllable is closed (CVC). The second syllable is closed as well (CVC), and the patah is lengthened to qametz because it ends a clause.
Says I
It is not clear to me how "the patah is lengthened to qametz". I am actually mystified by this "legthening". I myself am reading the patah and the qametz exactly the same way with no apparent injury to the language. The claim that the qametz is "broad" is, I am afraid, no more that a manufactured myth.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac says,
"It is not "why they pronounced things in certain ways", but why we pronounced things in certain ways."

Says I,
What?

Isaac says,
"We come upon exceptions in the niqud because of errors, omissions, overrides, controversies, clash of traditions, and disagreements between the original NAQDANIYM and the later "masoretes"."

Says I,
That's an unfounded judgment call that dismisses the Masoretes out of hand. I think we have a priceless treasure trove of linguistic data that should be examined. There's so much insight we can gain from their work. Insight like how the unpointed text may have sounded in archaic times. It's much more fruitful to take their ONE tradition (among others) an study it as a whole. No doubt they were human and prone to mistakes, but I prefer (and many scholars with me) to take the data as it is and study it trying to come up with explanations as to why the exceptions presents.

Isaac says,
"We read the ב of אַבְדָן as a V not as a B just by historical misunderstanding. The dot, or its absence, in the letter ד is, moreover, immaterial, as we read both of them now the same way."

1. It does not matter how we read now.
2. The rounded B (BH or as in IPA β) transitioned to a V because of natural linguistic pressures from the dominant language. There is no misunderstanding; the move happened because of natural linguistic phenomena. The same thing happened over time to the U in greek; it is now pronounced V.
3. The dot or its absence mattered to the Masoretes. And this not because they had an agenda, but because this is just the way the heard. It's a precious time stamp of the Hebrew language.
4. How we pronounce things today is immaterial. Take the qametz and the patah; modern Israel does not distinguish between them, and as you say it does not effect the meaning. There is a parallel in French. Canadians and not a few Frenchmen from southern parts of France speak with both a patah and a qametz (I am speaking about sound not pointing). While the Belgians like Israelis and modern Hebrew, just use a patah for all A's. As a linguist I could study how the two types of A are distributed, and I would discover they their usage would be consistent, and could be represented by a "rule." This is exactly what we find in the Masoretic pronunciation.

Isaac says,
"It is not clear to me how "the patah is lengthened to qametz". I am actually mystified by this "legthening". I myself am reading the patah and the qametz exactly the same way with no apparent injury to the language. The claim that the qametz is "broad" is, I am afraid, no more that a manufactured myth."

Says I,
The lengthening in this case is something that just naturally happens. It is not governed by any property at either the syllable level or at word level. It is part of the intonation of the phrase. The way they spoke they emphasized the last syllable or word of the phrase. This had the effect of lengthening whatever vowel occurred in that syllable. The intonation of modern Hebrew is completely foreign to the intonation of the Masoretes. I don't speak English like an Irishman. While we speak the same language, the pronunciation and intonation over a phrase are totally different. If someone recorded our conversation, they would notice even without any audio that our dialects are different. Now imagine if someone had the audio files and represented our pronunciations through the use of pointing. Later readers might wonder why there are inconsistencies in pronunciation.

Jonathan Mohler

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan says
What?
Says I
It should have better been: "but why we pronounce things in certain ways.", namely as we pronounce Hebrew today. See more below.

Jonathan says
That's an unfounded judgment call that dismisses the Masoretes out of hand.
Says I
God forbid! I am certainly not dismissing the niqud out of hand. I would not even start to know how to dismiss it out of hand. But, the niqud is a late comer, carried out by tireless, though nameless, authors, and is as such not as sacred as is the "skeletal" text. One occasionally encounters in the niqud markings (not the sounding) anomalies, especially relative to the dagesh, which one can not explain away, but in looking at them as errors, intended omissions, or overrides. Even highly respected, pious, present day editors, such as Harav Mordechai Breuer ז"ל, allowe themselves to enter "corrections" into the niqud, in say, removing certain hataphim, or manipulating the dgeshim, a thing I also do with abandon every time I read from the HB in public.

My basic assumption, my point of departure, concerning the dagesh is this:
The dagesh is a reading prop of great antiquity, and is not part of the niqud. It precedes the NAQDANIYM by many centuries. They have actually calibrated the niqud in accordance with the dagesh as they have found it in their preserved scrolls. The dagesh, moreover, is only for the eye; it has no bearing whatsoever on the pronunciation. Out of respect for for tradition they have left the dagesh almost as they have found it, even in face of the fact that it became superfluous (and distracting) in a punctuated text. They have also left in place most of the, now redundant, maters lectionis.
The piled-up meshugas of the "gemination", the schwa "mobile", etc. are later frivolous inventions, sucked out of fruitful fingers, and cast into the academic wind by scholastic kvetching.

Jonathan says
3. The dot or its absence mattered to the Masoretes. And this not because they had an agenda, but because this is just the way the heard. It's a precious time stamp of the Hebrew language.
Says I
As I have said before, in my estimation the dot was placed in the BH text possibly a millennium before the NAQDANIYM were even born. My theory is that they were guided in applying the niqud by this ancient little dot. The humble Karaite NAQDANIYM would not have dared to deface the text with dots placed inside the letter. This dotting is the work of an ancient, and great, authority, an authority of the first magnitude.
The different readings of BKP is random, incidental upon an indifferently placed dagesh. We read אַבְדָן as AVDAN, not ABDAN, because we see no dagesh in the letter ב. The dagesh, however, is simply missing for no good reason, or was even discarded as irrelevant. I suspect that the patah under the א was once a hataph-patah.

Jonathan says
How we pronounce things today is immaterial. Take the qametz and the patah; modern Israel does not distinguish between them, and as you say it does not effect the meaning. There is a parallel in French. Canadians and not a few Frenchmen from southern parts of France speak with both a patah and a qametz (I am speaking about sound not pointing)
Says I
The NAQDANIYM have left us no "user's manual", and we have lost a great part their sense of doing things (glimpses are offered us by the transcription of BH names into Greek and Latin). Yet, the fact that we read today the patah, the qametz and the hataphim in one and the same way, with no harm done to the language, suggests, methinks, that they are indeed, possibly, all originally conceived to be one and the same. I have no trust whatsoever in the claim that the different niqud markings represent different sounds. The learned instruction, for instance, to read the hataphim speedily, בחטף, is, in my opinion, but utter silliness.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Here are some more examples to some unexplained niqud. In Prov. 7:16
מַרְבַדִּים רָבַדְתִּי עַרְשִׂי חֲטֻבוֹת אֵטוּן מִצְרָיִם
we encounter the word מַרְבַדִּים, from the root RBD (related to רפד RPD, of which we have the רְפִידָה of Song 3:10), which is with a dageshless ב, contrary to every expectation in view of the fact that there is a patah under the מ. Indeed, the word בַּמַּחְבֶּרֶת, which we read BAMAXBERET, of Ex. 26:4 is with a dageshful ב. Did a "masorete", or a later copier, or any other self styled "improver" with pen, ink and a sharp scraper, remove the dagesh to rhyme מַרְבַדִּים with the next רָבַדְתִּי? In any event, we read it today as MARVADIYM, not MARBADIYM. Why? Just like that, because we see no dagesh in the letter B.
The word חֲטֻבוֹת of Prov. 7:16 is also with a dageshless ב contrary to every expectation in view of the qibutz under the ט. This I explain away by assuming that at one time the word was written in full, thus חֲטוּבוֹת. But I am still confronted by a dageshful ט in the מְחֻטָּבוֹת of Ps. 144:12
אֲשֶׁר בָּנֵינוּ כִּנְטִעִים מְגֻדָּלִים בִּנְעוּרֵיהֶם בְּנוֹתֵינוּ כְזָוִיֹּת מְחֻטָּבוֹת תַּבְנִית הֵיכָל

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

In this general discussion the possibility was raised that היא and הוא are from HAYAH and HAWAH, related to חיה and חוה. This raises the prospect of explaining away the unusual form אָחוֹת, 'sister', that looks like plural. Perhaps the O is misguided and the word is to be read אחות AXWAT = AXW-AT. Compare אָבִיו with ABIYHU.
I wonder, did the Hebrews have at one point a sacred name חיה-חוה = היה-הוה?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

One more apparently irregular pointing. The word עִנְּבֵי of Lev. 25:5
אֵת סְפִיחַ קְצִירְךָ לֹא תִקְצוֹר וְאֶת עִנְּבֵי נְזִירֶךָ לֹא תִבְצֹר
is with a dagesh in the letter נ, put there, I believe, to hint at the hireq under the first letter ע. A second dagesh is certainly unnecessary, and the letter ב is correctly left empty, to bring out the reading INVEI. But why is the dagesh not made to leap to the ב, as expected, to elicit the reading INBEI? Was this done on purpose, to align the reading of עִנְּבֵי with the reading of עֵנָב ENAV, and עֲנָבִים ANAVIYM, or is this unusual placement of the dagesh but a manifestation of another system of הדגשה?

BTW ענב is certainly but a variant of ענף, 'branch'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

In addition to אָחוֹת, 'sister', we find also the חָמוֹת, 'mother-in-law', of Ruth 1:14
וַתִּשַּׁק עָרְפָּה לַחֲמוֹתָהּ וְרוּת דָּבְקָה בָּהּ

Either the O sprang into being out of a W, or אוֹת is the compounded personal pronoun הוּא-אַת, as in אוֹתוֹ, 'him'.
A similar compound is being often used now for male->female -> big->small, as in כַּף, 'big spoon', versus כַּפִּית = כף-היא-את, 'little spoon'.
Or, possibly, the words were אחת and חמת and the O was added for clarity of meaning. In connection with the interchange היא את consider the word אַשְׁפַּתּוֹת of Lam. 4:5.

Isaac Fried, Boston University