[Mesorah] am vs. am

[Hayyim Obadyah]

the word eth with seghôl rather than ṣerê occurs with a ta`am rather than
maqqeph only 3 times:  Ps. 47:5, Ps 60:2, Prov 3:12. (all 3 times the ta`am
is ma'arikh)

-----Original Message-----
From: mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Sholom Simon
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 10:07 PM
To: Michael Hamm
Cc: mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] am vs. am

A helpful list member pointed our that I left out the basic rule -- so, just
for completeness sake:

The primary kol/kawl es/eis rule is the presence of a ta'am (Kol -- word has
a ta'am, it is a cholom; when it doesn't, it is a kamatz katan; and: eis
with ta'am, es without).  My description below  is really the answer to:
when will it have a ta'am or not:

>I would note that the kol/kawl rule is simlar (same?) as es/eis.  What 
>would normally be an "es" turns into an "eis" when there are exactly 
>three words to the phrase and ends on esnachta, siluk, zakef, and revia.
>
>(And, of course, there are exceptions to this, too).

He also told me that exceptions are "numerous", and added: "See, e.g.,
B'reishis 4:15, which ends with the two-word phrase "kol-motz'o," with a
kamatz; and 6 p'sukim later, ending with the four-word phrase "kol-tofeis
kinor v'ugav.""

-- Sholom

_______________________________________________
Mesorah mailing list
Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org