[Mesorah] Nongrammarian needs help

[Yitzchak M. Gottlieb]

On Jan 18, 2018, at 14:46, David and Esther Bannett via Mesorah <mesorah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> Although I'm one who prefers mesorah to the rules of grammar, I was checking the breakdown into syllables of a word and became confused. So I'm turning to the list for aid.
> 
> I was looking at the word asani as in shelo asani goi, eved etc.  If the sin had a kamatz, I have no problem. The syllables are a-sa-ni with no dagesh in the nun.  But the sin has a patach and to me it seems that the num should have a dagesh so the breakdown  is a-san-ni. but the nun has no dagesh in any siddur that I have seen.
> 
> As a mesoretic I checked the Bar-Ilan Keter and found 2 appearances of natani (nun w/ kamatz, tav with patach, nun without dagesh and with chirik).  With a dagesh, I then found 4 maginni, and 3 maginnei, and one dananni.  I didn't look for words with a third letter not a nun.
> 
> So, why is there no dagesh in asani.  Or, perhaps, I should ask what is wrong with my idea of syllablation of words.

In discussing verbs with ה as the third letter, the רדק in ספר המכלול asserts that the vowelization is גָלַנִי (kamatz, patach, hiriq) with no proof.  However, in discussing the general form of קל verbs in the single past-tense with the first-person as a direct object he states clearly:
פקדני העין קמוצה והלמד פתוחה וזה איננו כמשפט הנקוד. (Roughly translated: the second root letter has a kamatz, the third has a patach and this doesn’t follow the rules of nikkud.) He follows with a lengthy list of examples of the למד with פתח and a shorter list of the exceptions that have a קמץ.  It seems that this syllablation is once again proof that mesorah trumps our understanding of the rules that may have generated it.

Zuki

-- 
Yitzchak M. Gottlieb
zukigottlieb at gmail.com