[Avodah] Shva Na's etc.

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, May 19, at 1:39am EDT, R Michael Poppers wrote:
: ..                                         Last and not least, RSS z'l'
: is quoted <https://www.artscroll.com/Books/9781578195121.html> as
: advocating the "generally-accepted" l'shon CHaZAL of "shelo asani goy"
: as opposed to the "shelo asani nachri" emendation of a few grammarians
: (naming Heidenheim and Baer and leaving the 3rd name to the imagination) or
: "she'asani Yisrael".

It is unclear what nusach Chazal was, before censorship. Shu"t Zekher
Yehosef 1:13 prefers "shelo asani nakhri" on the grounds that that
was the gemara's original girsa.

"Shelo asani nakhri" is also the nusach some of the Gra's students record
as his nusach. Because "umi ke'amkha Yisrael goy echad ba'aretz" -- we
are a goy.

I think the change, for those who see "nakhri" as a change rather than a
restoration, is part of the same O Maskilim "correcting" Nusach Ashkenaz
in general to leshon Tanakh.

"Goy" as "[member of another] nation", rather than simply "nation"
starts with Chazal.

...
: RAM indicated a preference for "b*rachos" over "brachos", but I
: think he should reconsider (and I believe he did after our conversation).
: A sh'va (or, perhaps better, shva :)) is not a syllable unto itself
: (that said, poets can consider it a unit for poetic purposes, e.g. the
: 8 units in each phrase of "Y'did Nefesh"), but emphasizing a shva na',
: e.g. "b'rachos", could turn it into a chiriq...

True, so don't emphasize it. I don't think Hebrew is supposed to have
any consonant blends, including the /br/ you would end up with.

Maybe I should write it "b'rakhos", rather than "berakhos", but I wouldn't
write "brakhos", that just seems wrong.


On Wed, May 22, at 10:47pm EDT, R Sholom Simon wrote:
: (b) the sound is equivalent to a chataf vowel (as well as the fact that
: it's a partial syllable)

Grammatically, chataf vowel is a kind of sheva nach.

That's how he can be either Mordechai or Mordochai (with a chataf-qamatz
under the dalet). But a chataf under a dalet is a grammatical oddity.
Maybe it's because the name "Mordochai" is borrowed from Persian?

As for sound:
: (As for "b", I once asked RSM: if the sound of a shva na and a chataf is
: the same, why did ben Asher use a chataf instead of a shva na, or vice
: versa in particular places: I think RSM responded that in some cases
: it was to remind us to vocalize it, but in other cases, we don't really
: know why he chose one over the other.)

I dont' think that's true. A schwa can get a range of "colorings" based
on what vowel is nearby. I thought that was why a geronit that can't take
a sheva nach will be written with a chataf version of the adjacent nequdah.

Wiki gives an example which matches my perception: he'emid, where the "'e" is
an ayin with a chataf segol -- because your mouth can most readily repeat
the segol that was under the hei.

: Keitzad half of a syllable? Think of the last pasuk in Tehillim: "kol
: han shama"... is han'shama 3 syllables? Or 4? Or 3-1/3? (I dunno
: ...)

This was new to me. When looking up the wiki example, I think the author
says something similar. They have "he'emid" syllabified as "he-emid", only
two syllables.

I would have said he-`e-mid, a short but distinct middle syllable.

There are two things making the syllable short, or leshitas Wikipedia
(and as you wrote above), part of the next syllable: the letter will
(almost) always be a geronit, AND the vowel itself is.

So even if this new-to-me idea is correct, I wouldn't apply it to
b'rakhos.

BTW, RMP, what would you do with "v'hoda'os"? /vh/ doesn't blend; you
can't say vav and hei without a vowel in between. (I guess you can fully
combine them into a single aspirated /wh/, given a waw instead of a vav.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 33rd day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF             submission to truth, and what results?