[Mesorah] ham'chadesh, ham'vorach, ...

[hayyimobadyah at aol.com]

Gesenius sees the mem after the article as having a "virtual dagesh", and so it acts grammatically as if it had a dagesh (the shewa is na') but is not pronounced as a doubled consonant. (He applies this to the other exceptins as well and theorizes that in these cases the actual pronunciation had lost the doubling and so the Masoretes did not record dagesh.). 
Although he did not do so in his edition of the Ashkenazi siddur, in his Sephardic siddur Rev. Dr. De Sola Pool indicated for each shewa under such a mem that it is to be pronounced as shewa na'. 
Hayyim 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hamm <msh210 at math.wustl.edu>

Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:18:48 
To:mesorah at aishdas.org
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] ham'chadesh, ham'vorach, ...


On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, R' Micha Berger wrote, in part:
> But what did we conclude?
>
> It still seems like the siddurim are wrong in denoting both a sheva nach 
> and an undotted mem. I refuse to believe an exception this common isn't 
> commented upon in anyone's discussion of the rules. If it were an 
> exception.
>
> And yet, my guess is none of you are going to start saying
> "hamvorakh"...

You mean "hamborach", I think.

Michael Hamm
AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis
msh210 at math.wustl.edu                Fine print:
http://www.math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ ... legal.html
_______________________________________________
Mesorah mailing list
Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org