Isa 18:4 I will take my rest

[Chris Watts]

כִּי֩ כֹ֨ה אָמַ֤ר יְהוָה֙ אֵלַ֔י אשקוטה אֶשְׁקֳטָ֖ה

Two Problems I can not find an answer to:

1. This is the first time ever that I have come accross a Shewa and a Qametz thrown together underneath a consonant. It would hardly make a difference to the pronounciation?

2. Now To the word אשקוטה

A) Even-Shoshan concordance lists all the verbal forms of this word without a 'vav' for example in Job 3:13 and Isaiah 62:1, however in the actual scriptures they do indeed have the 'vav'. Why would the Jewish translators omit the 'vav'?

B) There is of course the Ketiv and the Keri. The Qetiv being with a vav and the Qeri without a vav. Based upon all other occurrences I do not understand what on earth the problem is by taking away the 'vav' from the written text?

Chris Watts

[ducky]

Sheva-Qamats sometimes comes with other letters than the guttural.

The אשקוטה (with Vav) has the form of a pausal.
(for some reason, any אשקוט is written with Vav).

But in this case, the form is not pausal and the vowel of the Q is reduced.

[Chris Watts]

David, with respect, I can not see how my questions have been answered.
Chris

[ducky]

I'm sorry, maybe I didn't understand you.

As far as I understand, you are talking about the difference between the two forms.
did I miss something?

[Chris Watts]

I'm sorry, maybe I didn't understand you.

As far as I understand, you are talking about the difference between the two forms.
did I miss something?

Ok David. Basically, how can you have a Shewa AND a Qamatz under a consanant at the same time, this pronounciation is contradictary and impossible in practical speaking. I have never ever seen this or read about it, but both the masoretci Qeri and even shoshan have this strange anomaly. This was my query.

Secondly why does Even-Shoshan list all these words WITHOUT a 'VAV' and yet they are in the masoretic text all over the place with a vav?

Thirdly, why is there even a ketiv and a queri reading? With the vav without the vav - what is the issue here, does it mean something different with and without the vav? The difference between the written and read version is the difference between saying EshKotah and EshKatah, it's a bit like when we say in English for the word Bath and some pronounce it : Bath, and some pronounce it Barth. the meaning is the same and if this were hebrew then it would be pointed differently and grammarians in the future would be arguing - so my question is not on Pausal or whatever but is the meaning different in a subtle sort of manner?

Thanks
Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

Basically, how can you have a Shewa AND a Qamatz under a consanant at the same time, this pronounciation is contradictary and impossible in practical speaking.

I don't know why you're calling it a sheva and a kamats. It's called chataf-kamats.

There are some situations in which a chataf vowel appears under a non-guttural consonant. Saying "under a consonant" is odd, too, since ALL letters in Hebrew are consonants at their base. So, it wouldn't surprise you to find עֳ, but ayin is certainly a consonant.

Look at the following:
Genesis 41:5 וַיִּישָׁ֕ן וַֽיַּחֲלֹ֖ם שֵׁנִ֑ית וְהִנֵּ֣ה׀ שֶׁ֣בַע שִׁבֳּלִ֗ים עֹלֹ֛ות בְּקָנֶ֥ה אֶחָ֖ד בְּרִיאֹ֥ות וְטֹבֹֽות׃

Exodus 28:38: וְהָיָה֮ עַל־מֵ֣צַח אַהֲרֹן֒ וְנָשָׂ֨א אַהֲרֹ֜ן אֶת־עֲוֹ֣ן הַקֳּדָשִׁ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֤ר יַקְדִּ֨ישׁוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לְכָֽל־מַתְּנֹ֖ת קָדְשֵׁיהֶ֑ם וְהָיָ֤ה עַל־מִצְחֹו֙ תָּמִ֔יד לְרָצֹ֥ון לָהֶ֖ם לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֽה׃

It is a general rule that chataf vowels appear under guttural letters, but it isn't necessarily universal. There are some situations in which they appear on other consonants.

Just read ◌ֳ as /o/ in all situations.

[Chris Watts]

Well that answers question one anyway, thankyou Jason for those examples - Though I have to say that I did not really notice the half vowels underneath letters other than gutturals. So I should have mentioned that. Any chance that you could answer the other two questions please?

Chris watts

[ducky]

Hi Chris,

After reading this thread again, I see that I didn't really miss a thing, and I actually answered your three questions in my short comment above. But I think that you didn't understand me because we need to go a little back.

Jason already gave you examples of Sheva+Qamats on non-gutturals letters.
And he also told you that this is called Hataph-Qamats.

Here are some general things that you need to realize before you go to that specific word of אשקטה.

1. Grammatically, Hataph-Qamats is equal to the Mobile-Sheva (and to the Hataph-Patah' and to the Hataph-Segol).
All of these four signs have the same grammatical essence.
And as for the grammar, it doesn't matter which sign comes. It would be the same.

2. the imperfect forms of yiqtol doesn't really have the Vav letter
so אשמר=eshmor אבגד=evgod אכתב=ekhtov
There is no Vav in that form.
But... We can see that the word אשקוט is written with Vav.
This Vav is no part of the form and it is actually like a vowel letter.
But it stayed like that in the text, because it doesn't really affect the reading or anything else (it is just a full spelling).
(You wrote about Even-Shoshan that wrote the words without a Vav - and that is because he writes it according to the grammar (even though, if he is quoting the text, he must follow the spelling, but never mind about that)).

3. when it comes to the long forms of imperfect, such as אשלחה אשמרה and so on, there are two forms.
אשמרה eshmOra (like in Psalms 59:10)
אשכנה eshkOna (Psalms 55:7)
It keeps the O vowel, and this O vowel is also accented.

The other form is like
אשמרה eshmərA (Psalms 39:2)
אשכנה eshkənA (Psalms 139:9)
in This form, the stress goes forward (to the last vowel), and the original O vowel (in the second letter of the root) is reduced to a mobile Sheva.

Notice, that the first form stands in a pausal position, and the second form stands in the middle of the "talk".

4. Now going back again to the אשקוטה
It is written with a Vav letter (never mind why), and so, it has the form that is expected to be n the pausal position. But it is not, and we expect a mobile Sheva in the second letter of the root.
And so, the spelling of אשקוטה is changed because the Vav must go.
and we got אשקטה with a reduced vowel.
(remember that there is no difference between the four signs)
And the letter ק of אשקטה keeps the "o" sound, as a reduced "o" sound (by getting a Hataph-Qamats)

5. Also see Ezra 8:26 and Jer. 32:9 for אשקלה with a mobile Sheva.
But in Ezra 8:25 you see אשקולה that is changed to אשקלה in the same way of אשקוטה/אשקטה.

Because the Mobile Sheva and the Hataph Qamats are the same grammatically.

Also, you can see that Aleppo codex gives Ezra 8:26 and Jer. 32:9 Hataph-Patah - and not Mobile Sheva (but grammatically there is no difference).

[Jason Hare]

In other words, we normally see ō reduce to ə when the standard imperfect form takes on the longer imperfect (and cohortative) forms. This is a historical development.

(1) yišmṓr → (2) yišmṓrû → (3) yišmərû́

(1) יִשְׁמֹ֫ר — The 3ms form.
(2) יִשְׁמֹ֫רוּ — Addition of û suffix to form the 3mp form. (historical, found in pause)
(3) יִשְׁמְר֫וּ — Accent shift causes reduction of pretonic syllable to sheva. (standard form)

Randomly, the ◌ֹ in the historical form is reduced not to ◌ְ (as we expect) but to ◌ֳ.

The same phenomenon appears with the cohorotative.

(1) ʾešmōr → (2) ʾešmṓrâ → ʾešmərấ

(1) אֶשְׁמֹ֫ר — The 1cs form.
(2) אֶשְׁמֹ֫רָה — Addition of â suffix to form the 1cs cohortative. (historical, found in pause)
(3) אֶשְׁמְרָ֫ה — Accent shift causes reduction of pretonic syllable to sheva. (standard form)

However, we see a diversity in forms. Not everything falls into the nice expectations.

We have לַעֲבֹר in the cohortative as אֶֽעֱבֹ֫רָה in pause in Numbers 20:19 and as אֶעְבְּרָ֫ה in Numbers 21:22 (not in pause).

It just makes the language more interesting! Sometimes, though, we have a certain way to pronounce one specific word -- and that word defies explanation. It could be that this specific word was spoken with an /o/ vowel in that syllable that the people didn't want to reduce (for whatever reason).

Therefore, the author wrote it with a vav (to indicate the /o/ vowel), but the Masoretes indicated that the vowel should have been reduced. However, they kept the /o/ sound by using the reduced /o/ vowel (chataf-kamats).

[Jason Hare]

Thirdly, why is there even a ketiv and a queri reading? With the vav without the vav - what is the issue here, does it mean something different with and without the vav?

The vav represents a long vowel (cholam-vav). The structure requires a reduced syllable. It normally reduces to sheva, but sometimes it reduces to a composite sheva. They are preserving the /o/ sound but reducing the syllable. Thus, the vav must be ignored and considered a mistake in the consonantal text.

[I say "mistake," but it's certainly not a mistake to write Hebrew as spoken. We use vav in modern Hebrew all over the place to indicate long vowels that would have normally been written without them in the biblical language. For example, לעמוד for לעמד "to stand."]