Ducky wrote
so i think that also in the word אפרים, the M is just a suffix to give the description - like חנם with חן)
So I think that this suffix comes to describe the attidue of the aspect.
Would you expand for us please on what is the "description of the attidue (attitude?) of the aspect."
Isaac Fried wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:52 pm
Now, how about the name אֶפְרָיִם of Gen. 41:52 וְאֵת שֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִי קָרָא אֶפְרָיִם כִּי הִפְרַנִי אֱלֹהִים בְּאֶרֶץ עָנְיִי
Was he so called because he was doubly (very) dark skinned (as was mommy?), the color of אפר, 'soot'?
Do you, claiming that you don't read qamats qatan as [o], read ישמר differently in יִשְׁמֹר and יִשְׁמָר־ (whether joined by maqaf to the following letter or bearing a pronominal suffix)? In other words, do you read the ḥolam in the red below differently than you read the qamats in the blue?
Nearly everyone who reads this pronounces both as the same imperfect form: yishmor. It doesn't matter if it's independent (יִשְׁמֹרyišmōr) or joined (יִשְׁמָרְךָyišmorḵá or יִשְׁמָר־צֵאתְךָyišmor-ṣēʾṯḵá).
Jason
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel The Hebrew Café יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳