patach furtive in Accordance

A place for members to share information and news about books, software, and websites of interest.
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
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 1:19 pm
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

patach furtive in Accordance

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Accordance's Hebrew Starter package is $50 until August 3. It has a Hebrew text, abridged BDB (without scripture references), and parses.

I am trying out Accordance Lite, which is free, and noticed that there is a patach under the chet in רוּחַ, as I have also typed it here, instead of a patach furtive. Does anyone happen to know whether this will still be the case with the Starter package? And if so, is the issue solved with more advanced packages?

Beginner's question: does it create any ambiguity, or are patachs under chet, heh and ayin always furtive?

Thanks,
Andrew Chapman
ducky
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: patach furtive in Accordance

Post by ducky »

Hi Andrew,

Except of old handscripts which this Patah' was written between the letters, the furtive Patah' is always written under the last letter.
This is the common way to write it.

you cannot be mistaken with this Patah'.
Whenever you see it at the last letter (ח/ע/ה) it is furtive
David Hunter
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 1:19 pm
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: patach furtive in Accordance

Post by Andrew Chapman »

ducky wrote:Hi Andrew,

Except of old handscripts which this Patah' was written between the letters, the furtive Patah' is always written under the last letter.
This is the common way to write it.

you cannot be mistaken with this Patah'.
Whenever you see it at the last letter (ח/ע/ה) it is furtive
Thank you, is it not normally placed under the right hand down stroke of the chet, as here for example (verse 2): https://www.academic-bible.com/en/onlin ... 817f43593/

rather than between the down strokes?
Andrew Chapman
ducky
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: patach furtive in Accordance

Post by ducky »

Hi Andrew,

Basically yes.
But check, for example, the Leningrad codex, in the first chapter.
In the word רוח the patah' is right under the letter.
But in the word רקיע, the Patah' is right under the previous letter (letter י=Y)

So basically, the "strict way" is to write it between the letters, closer to the last one, but in some handwritings there are "rules" of when to write it under the last letter (for example, after the W of Holam and Shuruq) - like the word רוח in Leingrad.
Or under the silent Y of the Hiriq - like in the word רקיע.
And sometimes, it is "moved" according to the space (not just the furtive, but also others)
Some don't put it in other cases.

Today (and not just) the Patah' is usually put under the last letter. It was done like that for years, probably for convenience.
But some, when they wants to dignify the writing, when it is the biblical text, put it a little bit to the side, just as your text you put.

There is no difference - just a matter of style.

*****
By the way, according to Ibn-Ezra, He said that the Qamats should be written as a line and a dot under it (probably as a combination of Patah'+Holam - a combination of A/O, which is the sound of the Qamats).
But in times, the Qamats was written as it is written today, and there is no difference.
Just a matter of style.

***
Anyway, it doesn't matter if you see a text that writes the Patah under the letter or a little bit to the side. same thing.
David Hunter
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 1:19 pm
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: patach furtive in Accordance

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Thanks, David, that's very helpful. I had guessed at some stage, and thus got it into my head, that it was the placement to the right that signified that it was to be sounded before the consonant rather than after.
Andrew Chapman
Kenneth Greifer
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:05 pm
Contact:

Re: patach furtive in Accordance

Post by Kenneth Greifer »

Is Accordance Lite any better than Biblehub?
Kenneth Greifer
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 1:19 pm
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: patach furtive in Accordance

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Kenneth Greifer wrote:Is Accordance Lite any better than Biblehub?
I am familiar with the bible hub interlinear: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_samuel/16.htm - is that what you were referring to?

I have bought Accordance's Hebrew Starter package, which is $50 until end today (normally $100).

One gets a clear uncluttered Hebrew text. By moving cursor over a word, parsing information and an English gloss comes up in a separate panel.

Press command key, and BDB comes up instead in that same separate panel.

Using 'Live Click', click on the word, and can get more info in new panels that spring up - the Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Dictionary comes with the package, so one can get a basic meaning. I have a paper copy of Holladay to throw in as well.

The Live Click panels have to be closed to get back to an unclutted text - but I think there may be a way of opening them in a separate window. Quite a learning curve, but OK - can get answers on the forum.
Andrew Chapman
User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 1:19 pm
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: patach furtive in Accordance

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Kenneth Greifer wrote:Is Accordance Lite any better than Biblehub?
P.S. With Accordance Lite, in Hebrew you just get Genesis 1-3. It's helpful for seeing whether you like it. If you buy the Hebrew starter package, it adds the whole tanach, and opens up the missing features - you don't have to reinstall.
Andrew Chapman
Kenneth Greifer
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:05 pm
Contact:

Re: patach furtive in Accordance

Post by Kenneth Greifer »

I like the dictionary on biblehub.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/559.htm

I also use Blue Letter Bible's dictionary and concordance.
http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/ ... 8085&t=KJV

I don't know if you have looked at Blue Letter Bible. They have a newer version, but I use the old version.
Kenneth Greifer
Post Reply