Page 2 of 2

Re: pronunciation question on Gen 1:21

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:46 pm
by ducky
Hi Glenn,

the word פקדי in Amos is an infinite, and we shouldn't compare the process of infinitive (which is basically a nominal form) to a verbal form like an imperfect שרץ.

So the "rule" that I wrote above is good for verbal forms (that has a reference of tense)

the infinitive has a different process.
The infinitve is base of the imperfect without its prefix.
so the imperfect is "yifqod" (base on "yapqud")
Notice that the P in that form has no vowel (a quiescent Sheva).

When the prefix Y is dropped, what left is: "pqud"
"Ya-pqud" --> pqud
But I remind you that the P is actually with no vowel (so it is not like it starts with a mobile Sheva).

That things caused a "trouble" - because now we have a form that starts with a combination of two consonants (at the beginning of the word).

And so, there was a vowel that was produced inside this combination to break it.
The vowel was "u"
the "u" came by influence of the already existing vowel "u" in that form.
(but then the "u" "took over" also in other forms)

So now we have "puqud" - and we add the suffix "i"
the second vowel was zeroed (or we would say was reduced to a mobile sheva) and the first "u" was turned to a qamats-qatan.
The second vowel, as i wrote above, turned into Sheva.
But even though it was originated from a vowel, (and therefore, we should call it a mobile Sheva), it is pronounced as silent Sheva.
And notice that the D that comes after this silent Sheva is without Dagesh Lene.

Re: pronunciation question on Gen 1:21

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:14 pm
by Jason Hare
ducky wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:46 am So now you also know that the sheva in the R of שרצו is a mobile sheva - because it is actually a vowel that was reduced.
For Glenn: This is exactly the case and how you should approach it. Since it was historically sharátsu and the second a reduced to sheva when the accent shifted, it is a vocalic reduction and should be a vocal sheva. (But most people do not pronounce it, and we think it sounds better without it. ;) )

And, yes, ducky is again correct. The historic form of imperatives and infinitive constructs revolved around u-class vowels, so we should think of both of these as having been qutul, if you will. That is, puqud, which then undergoes changes based on syllable addition or reduction. This is covered in Kutz and Josberger, around page 215.

This explains why both the infinitive construct and the imperative take the same form:

שְׁמֹר can be either "keep!" or "(to) keep, keeping." When suffixes are added for either personal pronouns (in the case of the infinitive) or the long-form imperative, we see the first syllable taking the u-quality vowel (kamats katan). Hence, שָׁמְרִי šomrî "my keeping" and שָׁמְרָה šomrâ "keep!" (2fs imperatives go through a different process to produce the i-quality vowel in the first syllable, of course.)

Re: pronunciation question on Gen 1:21

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:28 pm
by Jason Hare
Glenn: Fantastic questions!

Ducky: Brilliant responses!

Thanks for this, fellas. :)

Re: pronunciation question on Gen 1:21

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:22 pm
by Refael Shalev
I think that the initial shwa in imperative is simple shwa to compare with arabic.

Re: pronunciation question on Gen 1:21

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 3:04 pm
by ducky
If I'm not mistaken, and maybe someone can check if I'm not wrong here, According to research, the assumption is that the imperative is actually the first form (which the imperfect was born from it).
they assume that it had three forms: qutul, qatal, qitil.
therefore, we can see two forms of impertive
one with the second vowel שמר=shmor
one with the first vowel שמרה shomra.

Maybe in Arabic, the prosthetic Aliph before the imerative root, is based on the fact that the first vowel was drop, and then created a word that starts with a silent Sheva.
(but I don't really know about it)