How do you know a vowel reduces to sheva versus hatuf-pathach?

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.
Jason Hare
Posts: 937
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: How do you know a vowel reduces to sheva versus hatuf-pathach?

Post by Jason Hare »

ducky wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:16 pm But maybe it could be that pronouncing a not-voweled H after an "a vowel" would cause it to be pronounced as "a" (like we see it comes with Hataph-Patah'). And with that, the consonants-combination was broken naturally, creating the diphthong of "haw-->hô".
This could especially be true if the initial pronunciation contained an echo vowel: יַהֲוֶה rather than the commonly espoused יַהְוֶה with silent sheva. However, since this echo vowel isn't really part of the construction, I don't think it would really have an effect.
ducky wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:16 pm How come the W was turned into an ô?
I would expect it to turn into û?
(creating yə|hû|na|ṯan - because the W would push for the "u" sound, and then I don't see any reason for the û to turn to ô).
I think the real difference is the placement of the unvocalized vav. That is, if it is at the end of the word, it becomes de-emphasized, and that shift of the vocal accent forces it to become û. However, with the prefixed form of the name, the stress is being pulled toward the end of the word. I think this has an influence on the vowel coloring (since u and o are the same vowel class). It shouldn't be that much of a problem for us, given that we see things like מוּת (infinitive construct) and מוֹת (infinitive absolute). I mean, we know that qudš(u) became qóḏeš. I don't think that the o/u distinction should give us that much trouble.

What do you think?
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
ducky
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: How do you know a vowel reduces to sheva versus hatuf-pathach?

Post by ducky »

Hi Jason,
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:39 pm
ducky wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:16 pm But maybe it could be that pronouncing a not-voweled H after an "a vowel" would cause it to be pronounced as "a" (like we see it comes with Hataph-Patah'). And with that, the consonants-combination was broken naturally, creating the diphthong of "haw-->hô".
This could especially be true if the initial pronunciation contained an echo vowel: יַהֲ rather than the commonly espoused יַהְ with silent Sheva. However, since this echo vowel isn't really part of the construction, I don't think it would really have an effect.
I probably didn't explain myself well, because I see that you focused on the matter that is not so much relevant. (and maybe I just confused you and others by writing that).

It doesn't matter if the H in the full name is with a Silent Sheva or with a Hataph. Actually, the Hataph doesn't matter for this case at all (and for any process). The Hataph is just an alternative for the Sheva. Just ignore it.

The case is this.
"yahw" has the form "of qatl".
"qatl" form has two consonant together that should be broken.
just like:
כלב = kalb->kaleb
דלת = dal + feminine T suffix = dalt->dalet

And with a guttural letter is mostly broken with "a":
נחל = nah'l->nah'al

and with guttural H:
להט = laht->lahat
טהר = tuhr->tohar

Also with verbs, as short-form like ויפן (wayyifn->wayyifen) and so on... And so also the "yahw" is the short verb form.

So when there is the form of "yahw", it should be broken as well.
Now When I look at the last letter W - I would expect it to push to the "u" sound - creating "yahw->yahu:"
But it doesn't fit the case that we see in the existing name, which is not "hu:" but it is "ho:".

And so, how come the "ho:" sound could be created?
According to what I have in mind, only by a "haw->ho:".
(yahaw->yaho:)

And so, I tend to think that this "yahw" got a linking vowel "a" (a breaking vowel for the "qatl" form).

But how come the vowel "a" comes and not "u"?
That is the thing that bothering me.
But still, we can say that in the "yahw" form, we have two things that can maybe push it to be "a".
1. The previous "a" vowel.
2. The letter H.
And maybe these two things caused the natural linking vowel "a" to occur (and not the "u")

And if so, now we got "yahwnatan->yahawnatan->yaho:natan.

This is the only thing that I can think of.
because we must explain the o: vowel.

But I am not sure about it.
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:39 pm
ducky wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:16 pm How come the W was turned into an ô?
I would expect it to turn into û?
(creating yə|hû|na|ṯan - because the W would push for the "u" sound, and then I don't see any reason for the û to turn to ô).
I think the real difference is the placement of the unvocalized vav. That is if it is at the end of the word, it becomes de-emphasized, and that shift of the vocal accent forces it to become û. However, with the prefixed form of the name, the stress is being pulled toward the end of the word. I think this has an influence on the vowel coloring (since u and o are the same vowel class). It shouldn't be that much of a problem for us, given that we see things like מוּת (infinitive construct) and מוֹת (infinitive absolute). I mean, we know that qudš(u)
became qóḏeš. I don't think that the o/u distinction should give us that much trouble.

What do you think?
I don't see it fits.
The "o" in "qodesh" is based on a short "u" (qudsh).
The short "u" in some conditions, turns to Holam.

But in this case, we are talking about big "u".
And I don't see any reason for the u: to turn into o: (except for maybe case of dissimilations and such which is not the case here).

And the Holam in the absolute מות is based on a: (Canaanite shift).
So this "o" of the absolute has nothing to do with the "u" of the infinite (because this o: is actually a:).

When we look at "yahw" and want to expand the "hw" to a "u" sound, it would be "u:" (as long), and so, it is not likely to just turn to a Holam for no reason.

So I don't really sure about the process I suggested.
But I tried to use common processes in Hebrew to try to get from one point to the other.
(and as I say, I'm not sure).

But I also don't see your claim of the u: turns to a o: for no reason as a right way.
But maybe there are some cases like that, and if so, I would really like to see it.
David Hunter
Jason Hare
Posts: 937
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: How do you know a vowel reduces to sheva versus hatuf-pathach?

Post by Jason Hare »

ducky wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:01 pm I probably didn't explain myself well, because I see that you focused on the matter that is not so much relevant. (and maybe I just confused you and others by writing that).

It doesn't matter if the H in the full name is with a Silent Sheva or with a Hataph. Actually, the Hataph doesn't matter for this case at all (and for any process). The Hataph is just an alternative for the Sheva. Just ignore it.
You explained yourself perfectly well. I understood what you were getting at, and I agree with you that the vowel under the heh is inconsequential. Even as a chataf-patach, it would only be acting as an "echo vowel." Its goal was simply to make sure that the otherwise "silent" guttural would not be lost in pronunciation. Thus, יַעְקֹב took an echo of the a vowel in the first syllable to close it out as יַעֲקֹב. I was just saying that it was possible that there was an echo vowel under the heh (יַהֲוֶה). This same echo vowel was under the ḥet of יִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה and was of no consequence in the vav-consecutive וַיִּשְׁתָּ֫חוּ, which exhibits the same phenomenon that we were talking about before with the suffix ־יהו. That is, yiš|ta|ḥă|veh > *vay|yiš|taḥ|w > vay|yiš|tā́|hû. I'm aware that the vowel in such a situation is inconsequential; I was just postulating.
ducky wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:01 pm The case is this.
"yahw" has the form "of qatl".
"qatl" form has two consonant together that should be broken.
just like:
כלב = kalb->kaleb
דלת = dal + feminine T suffix = dalt->dalet

And with a guttural letter is mostly broken with "a":
נחל = nah'l->nah'al

and with guttural H:
להט = laht->lahat
טהר = tuhr->tohar
I see what you're saying now, that since it would have taken the patach on account of the guttural in a regular segolate pattern, this influenced the production of the û.

yahweh > *yahw > *yáhaw > yā́hû

Then again, we know of other -aw- that became -o- (as in יַוְם > יוֹם and מַוְת > מוֹת). Because it is not unprecedented, I don't think we can oppose it happening.
ducky wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:01 pm Also with verbs, as short-form like ויפן (wayyifn->wayyifen) and so on... And so also the "yahw" is the short verb form.

So when there is the form of "yahw", it should be broken as well.
Now When I look at the last letter W - I would expect it to push to the "u" sound - creating "yahw->yahu:"
But it doesn't fit the case that we see in the existing name, which is not "hu:" but it is "ho:".

And so, how come the "ho:" sound could be created?
According to what I have in mind, only by a "haw->ho:".
(yahaw->yaho:)

And so, I tend to think that this "yahw" got a linking vowel "a" (a breaking vowel for the "qatl" form).

But how come the vowel "a" comes and not "u"?
That is the thing that bothering me.
But still, we can say that in the "yahw" form, we have two things that can maybe push it to be "a".
1. The previous "a" vowel.
2. The letter H.
And maybe these two things caused the natural linking vowel "a" to occur (and not the "u")

And if so, now we got "yahwnatan->yahawnatan->yaho:natan.

This is the only thing that I can think of.
because we must explain the o: vowel.

But I am not sure about it.
I can totally see it this way and don't see it as much of an issue. Sometimes, vowels lengthened in ways that defy direct explanation. However, the addition of an a-vowel to attach to the guttural makes perfect sense.
ducky wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:01 pm I don't see it fits.
The "o" in "qodesh" is based on a short "u" (qudsh).
The short "u" in some conditions, turns to Holam.

But in this case, we are talking about big "u".
And I don't see any reason for the u: to turn into o: (except for maybe case of dissimilations and such which is not the case here).

And the Holam in the absolute מות is based on a: (Canaanite shift).
So this "o" of the absolute has nothing to do with the "u" of the infinite (because this o: is actually a:).
No, the -ō- of מות is from contraction of aw > ō. That is, mawt (as in Arabic) to môt, just like ay becomes ei, as in bayt becoming beit. In the absolute form, the consonant clusters were broken such that mawt became mawet מָ֫וֶת and bayt became bayit בַּיִת. The construct forms exhibit a switch to long diphthongs. This is the same thing that would be happening here. It is as if the yehw were attached to the second element of the theophoric name through construct. Thus, yahaw-natan took yahaw into construct, the first syllable reducing to sheva, and the second becoming a diphthong aw > ô (just like מות and תוך).

I think your suggestion of treating it like a segolate (that is, that they were attempting first to break up the consonant cluster and then to combine it) is an elegant solution.
ducky wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:01 pm When we look at "yahw" and want to expand the "hw" to a "u" sound, it would be "u:" (as long), and so, it is not likely to just turn to a Holam for no reason.

So I don't really sure about the process I suggested.
But I tried to use common processes in Hebrew to try to get from one point to the other.
(and as I say, I'm not sure).

But I also don't see your claim of the u: turns to a o: for no reason as a right way.
But maybe there are some cases like that, and if so, I would really like to see it.
I've come around. I think you've come up with a good perspective on what was happening. You've convinced me, even if you haven't convinced yourself.

Regards,
Jason
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
ducky
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: How do you know a vowel reduces to sheva versus hatuf-pathach?

Post by ducky »

Hi Jason, and thank you.

I just have to comment about some stuff you wrote, just to fine some stuff.
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:01 pm I see what you're saying now, that since it would have taken the patach on account of the guttural in a regular segolate pattern, this influenced the production of the û.

yahweh > *yahw > *yáhaw > yā́hû
I actually meant *yáhaw > yā́hō
aw->ō
but
uw->û

And as you said also in this comment, I was trying to avoid the "uw" and search for "aw"
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:01 pm Then again, we know of other -aw- that became -o- (as in יַוְם > יוֹם and מַוְת > מוֹת). Because it is not unprecedented, I don't think we can oppose it happening.
So that is the same case of "aw->ō" (as in the quote above)
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:01 pm I can totally see it this way and don't see it as much of an issue. Sometimes, vowels lengthened in ways that defy direct explanation. However, the addition of an a-vowel to attach to the guttural makes perfect sense.
The alternative was that if the "yahw->yahu:", and then we see that it is actually "yaho:"
So in that case, the u: turned to o:

And I do see it problematic, and I wish to see a switch like that if there is one, that would fit this case. And if so, we can use another way to explain it.
But I can't think of anything like that, and therefore, I tried to avoid the "u:".
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:01 pm No, the -ō- of מות is from contraction of aw > ō. That is, mawt (as in Arabic) to môt, just like ay becomes ei, as in bayt becoming beit. In the absolute form, the consonant clusters were broken such that mawt became mawet מָ֫וֶת and bayt became bayit בַּיִת. The construct forms exhibit a switch to long diphthongs. This is the same thing that would be happening here. It is as if the yehw were attached to the second element of the theophoric name through construct. Thus, yahaw-natan took yahaw into construct, the first syllable reducing to sheva, and the second becoming a diphthong aw > ô (just like מות and תוך).
In your previous comment, you said absolute מות and that is what I was talking about.
But in this comment, you talk about מות as a construct noun, which is indeed based on "aw->ô".

But it really doesn't matter, because this ô<-aw, and this ô-<a:,
both of them have nothing to do with "u" sound (of the infinitive, as you wrote in your last comment).
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:01 pm I think your suggestion of treating it like a segolate (that is, that they were attempting first to break up the consonant cluster and then to combine it) is an elegant solution.

I've come around. I think you've come up with a good perspective on what was happening. You've convinced me, even if you haven't convinced yourself.
Thanks again.


And by the way, maybe we should not try to look at it like that at all.
Because who said that this form is the real form.
Who said that the 4-letters-name is THE form, and the "yahw" is its short form.

Maybe the true name was just the three letters', or maybe just the two letters. And the "full" name is a late expansion for the name.
And if so, who knows what was the form of the three letters name for example.

I mean, this name is not pronounced, not voweled, not known from other cultures that we can understand something new about it.
So what we do is, first create ourselves an axiom about what is the "real form" and then try to "play" with it.
But who says that this "real form" is really the real form...
David Hunter
Glenn Dean
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue May 26, 2020 6:28 pm

Re: How do you know a vowel reduces to sheva versus hatuf-pathach?

Post by Glenn Dean »

ducky wrote: Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:18 pm The basic form of ראש is "qatl": רַאְשׁ.
Hi Ducky:

I've seen that term "qatl" several times - is it the term used for monosyllabic words, as in

מַלְךְ* (qatl, "a-class" monosyllabic)
סִפְר* (qitl, "i-class" monosyllabic)
בֻקְר* (qutl, "u-class" monosyllabic)

how many consonants are in the root for רֵאשִׁית - if it is a qatl then there are 3 (but it seems to have 4?????)
ducky wrote:רֶאֱשִׁית which was turned to רֵאשִית
I was also wondering if it is possible the vowel on the aleph "quiesced" (i.e. lost it's vowel) and then, as part of the normal rules, the near syllable, which contains a seghol, lengthen to tsere, i.e. you have רֶא|שִׁית* which was turned into רֵא|שִׁ֫ית

Glenn
ducky
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: How do you know a vowel reduces to sheva versus hatuf-pathach?

Post by ducky »

Hi Glenn,

you're right about the qatl.
**

About the ראשית
The ראשית itself is not a qatl form, but it is based on a qatl form.
just like תחתית which is based on "tah't+it"
So the "tah't" is the qatl form in tah'tit

So if you'll look as ראשית - it is based on ra'sh+it (which the Aleph became silent later).
So you should differ the suffix "it" from the "qatl" (qatlit=qatl+it).

*
As for the suggestion...
maybe. But I think that what you suggest should be a direct process from an "i" sound (hiriq). (and then we need to explain the "a" turns to "i".

Anyway, The process I suggested above is just an assumption, and I don't say that this is what it is.
In my mind, I can think of more suggestions.
And I don't really know for sure if any of them right.
David Hunter
Glenn Dean
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue May 26, 2020 6:28 pm

Re: How do you know a vowel reduces to sheva versus hatuf-pathach?

Post by Glenn Dean »

thanxs Ducky for the confirmation on qatl! I had seen qatl/qutl/qitl too many times without knowing what they really are, but I think I "got it" now ( :D )

Glenn
Post Reply