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

[hayyimobadyah at aol.com]

Modern grammarians universally deny shewa benoni as distinct from shewa nah. The concept was created to explain why a following bg"d kp"t was rafe. In fact, the reason for the rafe is historical: the bg"d kp"t was spirantized by a vowel before the vowel was zeroed out to shewa nah. 
Hayyim
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Poppers <MPoppers at kayescholer.com>

Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:14:28 
To:hayyimobadyah at aol.com
Cc:Mesorah at Lists.AishDas.org
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] ham'chadesh, ham'vorach, ...


> 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.). < 
What does Gesenius say about the situation that Hanau referred to as "t'nua' qalla" and modern grammarians label as "sh'va beinoni" or "sh'va m'racheif"?  Thanks. 
 
All the best from Michael _______________________________________________
Mesorah mailing list
Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org