pronunciation question on Gen 1:21

A place for those new to Biblical Hebrew to ask basic questions about the language of the Hebrew Bible.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
ducky
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: pronunciation question on Gen 1:21

Post 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).
Pqod.

And so, there was a vowel that was produced inside this combination to break it.
The vowel was "u"
pkud-->puqud
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"
"puqudi"
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.
puqudi-->puqdi-->poqdi
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.
David Hunter
Jason Hare
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: pronunciation question on Gen 1:21

Post 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.)
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Jason Hare
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: pronunciation question on Gen 1:21

Post by Jason Hare »

Glenn: Fantastic questions!

Ducky: Brilliant responses!

Thanks for this, fellas. :)
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Refael Shalev
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:07 pm

Re: pronunciation question on Gen 1:21

Post by Refael Shalev »

I think that the initial shwa in imperative is simple shwa to compare with arabic.
Refael Shalev
ducky
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: pronunciation question on Gen 1:21

Post 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)
David Hunter
Post Reply