Tsere, a hinted patah? Gen. 27:14

[Isaac Fried]

Still another possibility that comes to mind is that nouns used to end in a PP, say אבוּ = אב-הוא (or אבי = אב-היא) 'he is the big אב = עב one in the family', and hence אביו and אחיו. Then, the ת = את was added for the female. Nameley, initially חמו or חמי and then חמות or חמית. With the development and codification of the Hebrew Grammar, these interfering endings were discarded to leave the bare אב, אח, מלך etc. instead of the loaded אבו, אחו מלכו etc..

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

This may explain also names such as מלכיצדק =מלך-היא-צדק, and many more with אח and אב.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Concerning the learned claim, repeated here, that the qametz is "broad" I have just noticed this. We have read today in the song on the sea, Ex. 15:17
תְּבִאֵמוֹ וְתִטָּעֵמוֹ בְּהַר נַחֲלָתְךָ מָכוֹן לְשִׁבְתְּךָ פָּעַלְתָּ יהוה מִקְּדָשׁ אֲדֹנָי כּוֹנְנוּ יָדֶיךָ
Rashi (רבי שלמה יצחקי 1040 – 1105) says on the word מִקְּדָשׁ that:
"הטעם עליו זקף גדול להפרידו מתיבת השם (אדוני) שלאחריו"
namely, that the word has placed upon it the cantillation mark ZAKEP GADOL, |:, to separate the word מִקְּדָשׁ from the following אֲדֹנָי, on which it is not (not!) נסמך.
Question, why has Rashi to lean on the sounded cantillation, and not on the visible fact that מִקְּדָשׁ is punctuated with a qametz? Is not מקדשׁ in סמיכות,cs, punctuated with a patah, to wit: מִקְדַּשׁ אֱלֹהָיו "the sanctuary of his God", of Lev. 21:12? אמור מאתה, say now, that also Rashi thought, as far back as the 11th century, that the qametz and the patah have the same reading, and are shaped differently only for the benefit of the eye and the grammar.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

A friend called my attention to a subtle differentiation in meaning effectuated by the alternate use of tsere and segol.
1Sam 3:11
הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי עֹשֶׂה דָבָר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל
NIV: "See, I am about to do something in Israel"
Here, עֹשֶׂה, ("qal active participle") 'doing', is with a segol.
On the other hand, in 1Kings 11:28
וַיַּרְא שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת הַנַּעַר כִּי עֹשֵׂה מְלָאכָה הוּא
NIV: "and when Solomon saw how well the young man did his work"
Here, עֹשֵׂה, (still "qal active participle") 'knows how to do', is with a tsere.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

This is precisely the type of phonological evidence that favors the idea that the Masoretic pronunciation represents natural language. This kind of phonological phenomena is actually quite common across all language families. Take the English word PRESENT for example. If a native speaker wishes to indicate that he is using PRESENT as a verb, he will say PR'ZENT. If he/she wishes to indicate that she is using the noun PRESENT, the native speaker will say PREZ'NT. Notice two separate phonological phenomena occur simultaneously. 1)The accent shifts 2) The schwa moves. Both are at the word level. That is the semantic meaning of the word itself independently of its place in the phrase is altered. In the case of עֹשֶׂה and עֹשֵׂה, we have a similar change of meaning from a verb (עֹשֶׂה) to a noun (עֹשֵׂה). That is, the participle is acting in the first example as a verb that expresses the immediate future, while in the second example the participle is nominal (predicate). A native speaker of Masoretic Hebrew would do this quite naturally.

Jonathan Mohler

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan says
This is precisely the type of phonological evidence that favors the idea that the Masoretic pronunciation represents natural language.
Says I
All this is predicated on the doubtful assumption that the segol and the tsere were created, ab initio, to represent different sounds --- that there is a "phonology" involved. The fact that the segol and the tsere are read today, in the ארץ ישראל tradition, exactly the same way, with no apparent harm done to the language, suggests that they might have been created to sound one and the same, different only to the eye. Of course, any free spirit who wishes to read עוֹשֶׂה as OSE, and עוֹשֵׂה as OSEY (by tradition or for showoff), is free to do so.

The pious and obedient NAQDANIYM did not whimsically add their points according to the fleeting manner of speech of a "natural", or "native", language", but rather collectively by a well rooted, carefully preserved, ancient tradition (admittedly, possibly more than one), brought over with them from Persia or babylonia , methinks. And they had also the ancient dagesh, and the ancient matres lectionis אימוּת קריאה to guide them.

In case of doubt, or conflicting traditions, the NAQDANIYM reverted, I think, to a compromise mark. For instance, the Aramaic is יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ, but the Hebrew is יִתְגַּדֵּל וְיִתְקַדֵּשׁ, so it is punctuated by a mark resembling a patah. In Gen. 24:1 we read
וְאַבְרָהָם זָקֵן בָּא בַּיָּמִים
KJV: "And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age"
I suspect that the tsere of זָקֵן is but a compromise between the hireq of זָקִן 'old', (similarly to the צָעִיר, 'young', of Gen. 25:23), and the patah of זָקַן, 'became old'.

Shift of stress for a change of meaning is common now in spoken Hebrew, to wit: brAkah, a girl named בְּרָכָה, but brakAh, 'blessing'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University