[Mesorah] Fwd: fourth section of details of the Masorah

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon via Mesorah]

The shva is na there because it is under the first of two identical
comments _and_ is preceded by a ga'aya. That is, for bA, the shva under the
first of two identical consonants _is_ indeed na under certain
circumstance, namely, if the letter before it has a ga'aya (or secondary
ta'am) or is a long vowel (which is not the same as a t'nua gedola). A long
vowel for these purposes is a cholam, and, according to some sources, a
tzeirei as well.
Jeremy


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Michael Poppers via Mesorah <
mesorah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> > ....
> ​
> One of the most stable and characteristic uses of the ge‘aya is what YHB’Y
> called הכבדה  הגעיה.  This appears next to the vowel in a closed
> syllable, if that syllable is followed by another syllable, then a sh’wa
> na‘, then the stressed syllable.  For example, וְהִֽתְפַּלְל֞וּ in 1
> Kings 8:35.  The ge‘aya is next to the hiriq; the syllable is closed, as
> shown by the peh with a dagesh qal beginning the next syllable, which is
> followed by a sh’wa na‘, which is followed by the stressed syllable.
> > ....
> ​
> What is very interesting is what qualifies as a sh’wa na‘ here.  A sh’wa
> at the beginning of the word, of course, as in תִֽמְנֶֽה־לְךָ֣ ׀ חַ֡יִל in
> 1 Kings 20:25.  The second of two sh’was, as in וַֽיִּלְכְּדֻ֑הָ, Numbers
> 32:39.  The sh’wa under a letter with a dagesh hazaq, as in
> וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֵ֛הוּ, Genesis 3:23.  A hataf vowel under a guttural, as in
> in the example from Deuteronomy 29:17 above.  The first of two identical
> letters, as in the example from 2 Kings above.
> > ....This is just one of the signs that something is wrong with the
> Bahur’s rules.  In the next section, we will find more. <
> IIUC re the I Kings 8 <http://www.mechon-mamre.org/c/ct/c09a08.htm>:35
> example, the *shva* under the *lamed* is *na'* according to ben Asher
> because he graced the *chiriq* with a *ga'ya*, not because that *shva* is
> under the first of two identical consonants, and a *shva* is never *na'*
> just because it's under the first of two identical consonants -- is that
> correct?  Thanks.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mesorah mailing list
> Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
>
>


-- 
Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP
Associate Professor of Medicine at CUMC (Emergency Medicine)
Scholar-in-Residence, Center for Bioethics
Columbia University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140903/263243bf/attachment-0005.htm>