Tsere, a hinted patah? Gen. 27:14

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan says
But I don't believe you make a good enough case for the internal vowels being derived from pronouns.

Says I
What are is the alternative, to declare I O U empty, meaningless sounds?

Here are some more examples from biblical and spoken Hebrew:
קָשִׁיחַ = קש-היא-ח 'rigid' (opposite גָמִישׁ 'flexible'.) But קָשׁוּחַ = קש-הוא-ח, strict, tough'.
A noun may contain two PP, tucked in between radical, or hitched on at the ends. For instance, the תַּלְמִיד = אתה-למ-היא-ד 'student, deciple' as in 1ch.25:8, versus תַּלְמִוּד = אתה-למ-הוא-ד 'study'.
An initial אני הינו is found in Aramaic, for example, the נִדְבָּק= נִדְבָּךְ 'course of stones', of Ezra 6:4. Also נ-פרש-תא = נברשתא = נ-ברש-תא of Dan. 5:5, and the post biblical נחתום 'baker', from the root XTM.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Two typographical corrections to the above post: (1) "are is" should be "is". (2) The Hebrew word תַּלְמִוּד should be תַּלְמוּד.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

My attention is called to Judges 5:7
חָדְלוּ פְרָזוֹן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל חָדֵלּוּ
in which חָדֵלּוּ is with a dagesh in the letter ל L, as though it were חָדַלּוּ with a patah under the letter ד D.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Similarly, the segol appears to be a compromise between a tsere and a hireq, for example, לְחֶרְדַּת of 1Sam. 14:15, which is with a daleth דגושה, as is the כ of בִּרְכַּת of Gen. 28:4.
1Sam 14:15 has also חֲרָדָה marked with a hateph-pathah, which I consider a compromise between a hateph and a schwa, under the letter ח cheth. The fact that the ד here is devoid of a dagesh implies, methinks, that at the time the dgeshim were introduced as propping marks, the reading of the word was חְרָדָה as is the נְבָלָה of Gen. 34:7.

The often heard claim that the hateph-pathah is to be read בחטיפה, snappily, is no more that a terminological farce.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

I see that נַעַמְדָה of Isaiah 50:8, and וַתַּעַמְדוּן of Deut. 4:11, are both with a dageshless ד, which makes me suspect the patah under the letter ע.
The וַעֲרָפֶל of Deut. 4:11 is also with a dageshless פ, but here the ע is marked with hateph-patah.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Conversly, in כָּסּוּ of Ps. 80:11
כָּסּוּ הָרִים צִלָּהּ
the letter S ס is supplied with a dagesh, which makes me suspect the qametz under the letter K כ.
Note also the כָּלּוּ of Ps. 72:20.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

I have also just noticed the אַבְדָן of Esther 9:5, which is with patah under the א, but with a dageshless ד, which makes me doubt the niqud.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

Jonathan says
But I don't believe you make a good enough case for the internal vowels being derived from pronouns.

Says I
What are is the alternative, to declare I O U empty, meaningless sounds?

Here are some more examples from biblical and spoken Hebrew:
קָשִׁיחַ = קש-היא-ח 'rigid' (opposite גָמִישׁ 'flexible'.) But קָשׁוּחַ = קש-הוא-ח, strict, tough'.
A noun may contain two PP, tucked in between radical, or hitched on at the ends. For instance, the תַּלְמִיד = אתה-למ-היא-ד 'student, deciple' as in 1ch.25:8, versus תַּלְמִוּד = אתה-למ-הוא-ד 'study'.
An initial אני הינו is found in Aramaic, for example, the נִדְבָּק= נִדְבָּךְ 'course of stones', of Ezra 6:4. Also נ-פרש-תא = נברשתא = נ-ברש-תא of Dan. 5:5, and the post biblical נחתום 'baker', from the root XTM.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

1. Why look for meaning? Why not see the vowels as inherited from older hebrew?
2. Just because there is no alternative does not mean your theory has any merit.
3. as an alternative, some vowels may simply be the product of "vowel harmonisation" that occurred at an earlier time when the word contained more phonemes on the end of the word that were later dropped.

Jonathan Mohler

[Jemoh66]

I have also just noticed the אַבְדָן of Esther 9:5, which is with patah under the א, but with a dageshless ד, which makes me doubt the niqud.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

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. In this case, I see that they kept the continuant feature of the bhet. So they pronounced this word abhdhaan. 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. Lots of layering going on here (see Metrical and Autosegmental phonology, chapters 7 and 8 of Phonological Analysis, A Functional Approach, Donald A. Burquest). The lengthening of a clause-final syllable is not grammatical or semantical, but intonation.

Jonathan Mohler

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan says
1. Why look for meaning? Why not see the vowels as inherited from older hebrew?
Says I
I can only reiterate my previous claim, which is that I can not bring myself to believe that Hebrew contains empty, meaningless sounds. Hebrew is replete with meanings and nuances. How can one reject meaning that glares at you? It seems obvious to me, and it was always so, that the vowels I U (A is merely for sucking and expelling air) are, as Hebrew is now, the identity markers היא and הוא referring in a verb to the actors, and in a noun to the object.
How can one deny the "fact" that the U in שבוּר $ABUR, 'he is broken', is the identity marker (PP) הוּא 'he', identifying the broken thing, and that the U in שוּבר 'he was broken', is the identity marker (PP) הוּא 'he', identifying the beneficiary of the act $BR?

Jonathan says
2. Just because there is no alternative does not mean your theory has any merit.
Says I
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:
The Hebrew word is a root plus personal pronouns
But as they say today רוצה יקנה, לא רוצה, לא צריך.

Jonathan says
3. as an alternative, some vowels may simply be the product of "vowel harmonisation" that occurred at an earlier time when the word contained more phonemes on the end of the word that were later dropped.
Says I
I am not sure what "older Hebrew" is and how it sounded, but I am ready to accept the argument that Hebrew had, once upon a time, the only three vowels A I U, as does present day higher Arabic.
The sound O came into its own possibly later, from a lazy throat relaxing an U. The segol and the tsere were likewise possibly created from a melange of A and I.

Isaac Fried, Boston University