Chayei Sarah - Pausal form on tipcha despite etnachta

[Mark Symons]

In pesukim that don't have an etnachta, the tipcha sometimes functions as an etnachta (eg when there is no zakef clause eg Nu 9:2)  and thus takes the pausal form of the word (pasach instead of pesach in that example). 

However in Gn 23:11 there is an etnachta, yet the tipcha before the sof-pasuk takes the pausal form (Lach, rather than Lecha). The reason would seem to be that it's the end of mini-sentence within the pasuk, so that the meaning calls for a strong break. But why not use a zakef clause (mahpach-pashta-munach-zakef instead of darga-tvir-mercha-tipcha? Perhaps because that would necessitate k'vor meitecha taking tipcha-sof-pasuk instead of mercha-sof-pasuk whereas they wanted the latter so as to more tightly join these last 2 words?

I wonder if there are other examples.

Comments?

Mark Symons

[Jay Braun]

> But why not use a zakef clause (mahpach-pashta-munach-zakef instead of darga-tvir-mercha-tipcha? 

Technically, a tip'Ha represents as large a pause as a zaqef.  Bother are second-order disjunctives (along with segol, which is a variant of zaqef), or "m'lachim", just below sof-pasuk and etnaHta (first-order disjunctives, or "kesarim").  So a pausal form on tip'Ha should be no more "remarkable" than a pausal form on zaqef.  

Having said that, I agree that it does seem less intuitive, and I think that's because tip'Ha is often an "upgraded" mer'cha, i.e., where the sof-pasuk or etnaHta phrase has only two t'`amim, and there is no t'vir.

The phrasing of the pasuk according to the trope is:

(לעיני בני־עמי) נתתיה לך) קבר מתך)))

The alternative that you offered would be:

(לעיני בני־עמי) נתתיה לך)) ((קבר) מתך))

The first, I think, reflects Ephron's implication better (if I may paraphrase):  "Look, everyone just saw me offer it to you for free, so go ahead and bury your dead."  The second might be more of a neutral transactional offer.

j 

[Jay Braun]

"Bother are" should be "Both are".  Why do I see these typos the instant I press Send?

[Baalkriah]

There is no real difference between the two options. 

Mercha does not get upgraded to tipcha unless the entire sof pasuk/etnachta phrase has only two taamim (as you wrote), or if one of its last two words is "long". Since k'vor meitecha are both short words, that is not an option here. 

Shmuel rabin

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jay Braun]

I agree that the upgrade is not occurring in Mark's alternative (see how I "diagrammed" it, with k'vor being treated as a disjunctive).

I simply wanted to underscore how significant a pause tip'Ha typically represents.  There is a tendency among many Torah readers (not likely anyone who would care enough to participate in this group!) to "blow through" a tip'Ha.  My favorite example is something like: שִׁשָּׁ֧ה וְאַרְבָּעִ֛ים אֶ֖לֶף וַֽחֲמֵ֥שׁ מֵאֽוֹת  Many readers (at least those using Eastern Ashkenazi trope, as I do) take a breath after the t'vir, so that instead of 46,500 they end up saying 1,546.  Others are careless about the order of tip'Ha and mer'cha (or munaH), and always place tip'Ha on the second word of a three-word phrase.

Jay

[Jay Braun]

Sorry, the mer'cha under "vaHamesh" became jumbled with the tzere, so it looks like a t'vir.  I was referring to the real t'vir, under v'arba`im.

[Mark Symons]

I know that a tipcha has significant pausal power but it seems unusual for it to take the pausal form of a word in a pasuk that has an etnachta

Mark

[Jay Braun]

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:05:04 PM UTC-8, Mark Symons wrote:

I know that a tipcha has significant pausal power but it seems unusual for it to take the pausal form of a word in a pasuk that has an etnachta

It seems to be more common when there is a t'vir sub-clause leading up to it, whether or not there is an etnaHta.  See, for example, D'varim 26:2. 

j

[MP]

Mark wrote:

> However in Gn 23:11 there is an etnachta, yet the tipcha before the

sof-pasuk takes the pausal form (Lach, rather than Lecha). ... I wonder if there are other examples. <

and Jay responded:

> Technically, a tip'Ha represents as large a pause as a zaqef. Bother are 

second-order disjunctives (along with segol, which is a variant of zaqef), 
or "m'lachim", just below sof-pasuk and etnaHta (first-order disjunctives, 
or "kesarim"). So a pausal form on tip'Ha should be no more "remarkable"

than a pausal form on zaqef. <

Such a "pausal form" need not occur solely with a [1st- or] 2nd-order mafsiq -- in P'Chayei Sarah, see Gn 24:40's "ittach".

All the best from

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

[Jay Braun]

Such a "pausal form" need not occur solely with a [1st- or] 2nd-order mafsiq -- in P'Chayei Sarah, see Gn 24:40's "ittach".

Right.  In a recent thread, we also discussed vayoMAR in 16:8. 

Off-hand, I cannot think of an example with a 4th-order mafsik.

(or a m'sharet, for that matter.)

j

[Mark Symons]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jay Braun <lyng...@gmail.com> wrote:

Such a "pausal form" need not occur solely with a [1st- or] 2nd-order mafsiq -- in P'Chayei Sarah, see Gn 24:40's "ittach".

   -   I wonder why it becomes itach there - it must be uncommon on a 3rd order mafsik? Are there rules?

Right.  In a recent thread, we also discussed vayoMAR in 16:8. 

   -  You mean 15:8. But that's an etnachta so you expect it. It's interesting that in the case of Vayomer/Vayomar, it's the pausal form that's mil'ra, whereas many (most?) pausal forms change from mil'ra to mil'eil

Mark S

[Jay Braun]

   -  You mean 15:8. But that's an etnachta so you expect it. 

No, I mean 16:8.  vayoMAR is the first word there as well, but with r'vi`a.

j 

[Zev Sero]

On 11/03/2015 11:50 PM, Mark Symons wrote:
> - You mean 15:8. But that's an etnachta so you expect it. It's
> interesting that in the case of Vayomer/Vayomar, it's the pausal form
> that's mil'ra, whereas many (most?) pausal forms change from mil'ra
> to mil'eil

I don't believe vayomar is a pausal form at all. I was taught that it
means a declaration rather than mere speech.


--
Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
I'll explain it to you".

[Mark Symons]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Jay Braun <lyng...@gmail.com> wrote:

   -  You mean 15:8. But that's an etnachta so you expect it. 

No, I mean 16:8.  vayoMAR is the first word there as well, but with r'vi`a.

          -  Sorry, I didn't notice it 

[Mark Symons]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

On 11/03/2015 11:50 PM, Mark Symons wrote:

-  You mean 15:8. But that's an etnachta so you expect it. It's
interesting that in the case of Vayomer/Vayomar, it's the pausal form
that's mil'ra, whereas many (most?) pausal forms change from mil'ra
to mil'eil

I don't believe vayomar is a pausal form at all.  I was taught that it
means a declaration rather than mere speech.

      - Looking up a couple of websites suggests something else (which now seems obvious in hindsight): 

The word Vayomar is always immediately followed by the content of the speech;  whereas the word Vayomer is followed by the name of the subject who is speaking (eg Vayomer Hashem, Vayomer Avraham etc), or by something about the speech (eg vayomer el ha-isha).

Mark S

 

--
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
               And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
               I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
               I'll explain it to you".

[Zev Sero]

On 11/04/2015 12:56 AM, Mark Symons wrote:
> The word Vayomar is always immediately followed by the content of the
> speech; whereas the word Vayomer is followed by the name of the
> subject who is speaking (eg Vayomer Hashem, Vayomer Avraham etc), or
> by something about the speech (eg vayomer el ha-isha).

That would explain why it's always found on pauses even though it's
not a pausal form: it's not the pause that causes the vayomar, it's
the vayomar that causes the pause, like the comma that one inserts
in English before a quote.

[Mark Symons]

Vayomar may well always be followed by direct speech, but so sometimes is Vayomer - eg Gn 18:28, 18:30 (twice), 18:31, 18:32. So it seems we're back to square one in terms of looking for a rule!

Mark S

[Jay Braun]

Since אמר is an irregular verb, it's impossible to establish a pattern of similar verbs -- 

those with א as the first letter, in בנין קל, in עתיד tense (more technically, perfective aspect) -- 

to establish whether וַיֹאמַר is a pausal form.  I think we can agree, though, that it tends to 

appear in the environments of pausal forms and before long declarations because it is used

 when there is no subject after the verb, and when the object (the quote) is relatively

long, i.e., more than a word or two. 

j

[Jay Braun]

Almost forgot:  Having said all of the above, I think of it as a pausal form because וַיֹאמֶר never appears on a first-order disjunctive, despite appearing before many declarations.

j

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

According to Muraoka, it is paid all. See sec. 73 d

Jeremy

On Nov 4, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Jay Braun <lyng...@gmail.com> wrote:

Almost forgot:  Having said all of the above, I think of it as a pausal form because וַיֹאמֶר never appears on a first-order disjunctive, despite appearing before many declarations.

j

--

[Simon Montagu]

On 11/04/2015 07:56 AM, Mark Symons wrote:
> - Looking up a couple of websites suggests something else (which
> now seems obvious in hindsight):
> The word Vayomar is always immediately followed by the content of the
> speech; whereas the word Vayomer is followed by the name of the subject
> who is speaking (eg Vayomer Hashem, Vayomer Avraham etc), or by
> something about the speech (eg vayomer el ha-isha).

That's correct but incomplete: vayomer can also be followed immediately
by the content of the speech.

(This throws me every year in Megillat Esther, where 5:7 and 7:3 have
vatomar and 8:5 has vatomer, all immediately followed by Esther's words.
I think every year I get at least one of them wrong. Does anybody have a
good mnemonic to get this straight?)

[Jay Braun]

(This throws me every year in Megillat Esther, where 5:7 and 7:3 have
vatomar and 8:5 has vatomer, all immediately followed by Esther's words.
I think every year I get at least one of them wrong. Does anybody have a
good mnemonic to get this straight?)

To be honest, I never had a problem with 8:5, I think because it's the first word of the pasuk.  I'm aware that the pausal vayoMAR can occur on the first word of a pasuk, especially if it has an etnaHta, as has been the case several times in our recent weekly readings, as well as the shalshelet in this week's sedra -- I just seem to have not considered it here as a possibility.  So, this mnemonic is only "good" for Esther.

But if you want a real answer, 8:5 begins with a 4th-order disjunctive (the other two are on 1st- and 2nd-order disjunctives).  This makes a pausal form extremely unlikely.

j

[Zev Sero]

On 11/04/2015 06:40 AM, Mark Symons wrote:
> Vayomar may well always be followed by direct speech, but so
> sometimes is Vayomer - eg Gn 18:28, 18:30 (twice), 18:31, 18:32. So
> it seems we're back to square one in terms of looking for a rule!

Which leaves what I was taught in cheder, that "vayomer" and "vayomar"
are different words; the first means "said" and the second means
"declared". (Well, what I was taught was that vayomer is "gezogt"
and vayomar is "azei gezogt". Which I now understand to mean declaration
rather than mere speech, but could also mean an exact quote rather than
a paraphrase; I recall someone suggesting that the last time we discussed
this.)

[Jay Braun]

>Which leaves what I was taught in cheder, that "vayomer" and "vayomar" 
>are different words; the first means "said" and the second means 
>"declared".

Which is quite consistent with vayoMAR being the pausal form.

In English, one could say that vaYOmer means "he said" and voyaMAR means "he said thus".  They are obviously "different" in that they have different vowels and different accentuation, but they are clearly different forms of the same underlying word.

j

[Jay Braun]

Actually, I based my response on:  "vayomer is "gezogt" 

and vayomar is "azei gezogt".