Re: [leining] 11 rules of shva, not 5. ( shva rules, from torahresource.com )

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

First, only 1-8 contrast with the original 5 rules. The other 3 are for something else (shva nach). second, 2 and 8 are the same. Finally, 7 is disputed. It is essentially referring to a shva merachef, and even if you acknowledge that such a thing exists, not everyone agrees is is read like a shva na. I am not even sure it is clear that Hanau thought it was.

Jeremy

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:38 PM, <shmuel.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.torahresource.com/Hebrew%20MP3/ShevaRules.pdf

Short Vowels- patach, segol, chirik katan, kamatz katan, kibbutz 

Long Vowels- kamatz gadol, tzere, tzere gadol, chirik gadol, cholam, cholam gadol, shuruk

(I don't know if these rules count a kubutz when pronounced like 'too' as still being short,  And a shuruk when pronounced like book, as still being long. And a chirik without yud when pronounced like heat as still being short   etc I guess maybe they do 'cos it's well written and so i'll take the classification/tabulation of vowels as accurate)

 

Vocal Shva

1  shva  at the beginning of a word is pronounced. 

2  Any sheva following a letter that has a long vowel is pronounced, unless that letter is accented (indicated in the MT with a cantillation mark). 

e.g. Gen 32:11(katonti), Gen 30:8(yacholti)   

3  A shva on a letter with a dagesh is pronounced mipuhnei   gen 3:8

4  A shva on just the first of two identical letters,  Hinuhni  gen 6:17 

5  Any sheva following a letter with Metheg is pronounced <-- Though A)I see no example B)it is at odds with some of the things said in this group, but I see no examples to support either side of that "debate". 

6  When two shevas follow each other in a word, the first is silent and the second pronounced. 

7  A sheva on a letter immediately preceding any of the ת פ כ ד ג ב letters which does not have a dagesh is pronounced. e.g. Yaatphu Psalms 65:14 <-- In my feldheim it is silent.

8  When a word has two cantillations (t’amim), and one cantillation is on the letter immediately preceding a sheva, it is pronounced.  <-- I have no example proving this

Silent Shva

1 Whenever the sheva is on the last letter of a syllable, it is silent   yilmad(Deut 17:19),    Mishteh(Gen 19:3)

2 When the last letter takes a shva, the shva is silent e.g. bach(Gen 3:16), 

3  When two shevas follow each other as the last two vowels of a word, both are silent. (This is rare).   yaft(Gen 9:27) 

--
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.

--

Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP
Associate Professor of Medicine at CUMC (Emergency Medicine)
Columbia University

[Jay Braun]

>Finally, 7 is disputed. It is essentially referring to a shva merachef, and even if you acknowledge that such a thing exists, not everyone agrees is is read like a shva na. I am not even sure it is >clear that Hanau thought it was.

In a response to Rivka's thread just a few minutes ago, I indicated the word לְמַ֣עַנְכֶ֔ם -- is the נְ an example of what you are referring to?  fwiw, I read it as a sh'va NaH.

j

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

I would have thought that it was just referring to the letter right after the trup. If you are right, then 8 is not the same as 2, but makes for odd readings (like this word)

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

Deut 3:26 (לְמַ֣עַנְכֶ֔ם)   

Does indeed match rule 7  (that a shva before a BGDKPRT letter with no dagesh, that shva is vocal/nah). Though in my feldheim it's silent/nach. So my feldheim doesn't follow that disputed rule 7.

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:36:15 AM UTC, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon wrote:

>I would have thought that it was just referring to the letter right after the trup. If you are right, then 8 is not the same as 2, but makes for odd readings (like this word)

Jay's word (lemaanchem deut 3:26)  לְמַ֣עַנְכֶ֔ם  was a good example of  rule 7.  As is  Yaatphu Psalms 65:14

I see his example doesn't also match rule 8 since there is no accent on the ayin (the letter immediately preceding the shva) 

You mention rule 8 - Can you give an example of rule 8?

I had no example of rule 8 in my original post either. So an example would be very good

Ta

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

I don't have one off hand, but I don't think they are particularly uncommon. If no one else gives an example, I'm sure that if you keep your eyes open for the next couple of weeks.
Jeremy

--

[Jay Braun]

I had no example of rule 8 in my original post either. So an example would be very good

Deut 3:26 (לְמַ֣עַנְכֶ֔ם)   

Does indeed match rule 7  (that a shva before a BGDKPRT letter with no dagesh, that shva is vocal/nah). Though in my feldheim it's silent/nach. So my feldheim doesn't follow that disputed rule 7.

 תִּנָּ֣גְפ֔וּ from B'midbar 14:42, I believe, illustrates rule 8.

I find rule 7 problematic.  If I understand it correctly, it would lead us to pronounce מַלְכוּת as "mal'chut" rather than "malchut".  I recall that the old Shiloh siddur, which I used in second grade over 50 years ago, followed rule 7, i.e., it had a horizontal line over vocalized sh'va, and the line appeared in this environment. 

j

[Jay Braun]

Can't leave out one of my favorites:  מִכָּל־אֹ֨יְבֶ֜יךָ in D'varim 25:19.

This one is especially interesting because when I read this pasuk as part of Parashat Zachor, I am exceedingly careful not to begin the "y" sound until I complete the "o".  Many readers glide into "oy" here (as if the yod had a degesh Hazak), which is understandable.  But since it's generally considered a "mitzvo d'oraisso", I guard against it.

j

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

Well, here's an example where shva na vs. nach makes an even greater difference to the sound. You see, I do read it as OY, but with no dagesh chazak, since I read it as a shva nach, as was clearly intended by the masorah.  Indeed, even those who lein generally according to Bachur (i.e., everyone but me) should perhaps consider reading Zachor according to the masoretic shva na/nach rules.

Jeremy

--

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.

[Cary Maister]

Hi Jeremy,

What is the relevant masoretic shva na/nach rule here?

-Cary

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

The relevant rule is that by default, A shva is nach unless there is some reason for it to be na, and there is no relevant reason there.

Jeremy

[Jay Braun]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 11:01:47 AM UTC-8, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon wrote:

The relevant rule is that by default, A shva is nach unless there is some reason for it to be na, and there is no relevant reason there.

Jeremy

Rule 8 discussed above might be one reason.

But prior to reading rule 8, my thinking is:  If not for the kadma on "o", it would have had a meteg.  It appears to be an open syllable with a long vowel, and the yod leads into the next vowel.

Please rest assured that I am not arguing, but am interested in your opinion about this.

j

[Jay Braun]

"and the yod leads into the next vowel."

I mean, of course, the yod leads into the next syllable.

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

Neither rule 8 nor the meteg rule you mention are masoretic. There is no such tendency to open a syllable just because it has an accent -- trup or meteg.

Jeremy

--

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 am at work, and do not have my Simanim handy.  Could someone look up what the Simanim has for this sh'va?  I'm just intensely curious at this point.

j

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

It has a shva na. Why would you think otherwise?

Jeremy

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Jay Braun <lyng...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am at work, and do not have my Simanim handy.  Could someone look up what the Simanim has for this sh'va?  I'm just intensely curious at this point.

j

--

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]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 11:45:44 AM UTC-8, Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon wrote:

It has a shva na. Why would you think otherwise?

Jeremy

Jeremy,

First, thanks for checking.  At least I can rest assured that I have not been doing it "wrong" all these years.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the distinction between "masoretic" rules and the rules that many of us apply and discuss here.  Any short elucidation, or a link to an on-line resource, would be much appreciated.

j

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

Wwe have discussed them in the past, most recently a couple of months ago. Primarily, according to the tiberians, a shva was nach unless:

1) It was under the first letter of the word (except for shtei).

2) It was under a dagesh.

3) It was the second of two consecutive shvas.

4) It was under the first of two consecutive identical letters AND the preceding letter had a cholam (a tzeirei) or a meteg. (I have seen different opinions about tzeirei in this regard)

5) It follows certain specific types of metegs (a minority)

6) It falls under certain special rules. On example of such a rule is that in the root A-CH-L (to eat) a shva under the chaf is na if and only if the lamed has a segol. So, Tochelenu, but tochlu.

7) The masorah says it is a shva na.

The biggest absences are, no rule about tnua gedola/ketana, which they didn't have, and, as I mentioned to start this whole thing off, no rule about following an accented letter.

Jeremy

--

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.

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 4:44:56 PM UTC, Jay Braun wrote:

 תִּנָּ֣גְפ֔וּ from B'midbar 14:42, I believe, illustrates rule 8.

Thanks, I see another example in Joshua 21:42(Ohyuhvayhem) and Numbers 3:21(lger'shon)  All good examples.

Is it always the first accent?

i.e. do all the examples matching rule 8 have to be ones where the shva follows the first accent

e.g. is it possible to have a shva after the second accent, and thus have that shva be vocal?

e.g. let's say there are two letters after the second accent, the first letter has a shva.  Then that shva would I suppose be vocal?  

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

the second trup is just like any other trup, so, if it does happen that it is ever followed by a shva, the shva would be na under these rules, but under rule 2 (I think it was) not rule 8. (Though as I said, 8 is really redundant anyway.)

Jeremy

--
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]

In my first example (the one that you cited) the first trope is on the second syllable.

In ny second example from Zachor is on the third syllable of the hyphenated word.

So it can be on any syllable.

Shavua tov.

[Jay Braun]

My apologies.  I misread your question (again, on my iPhone!).

I will think about your question and post a response if I have anything useful to say. :--)

[Jay Braun]

e.g. is it possible to have a shva after the second accent, and thus have that shva be vocal?

I hope I am answering the right question.  IIUC, you are asking:  Given that a word has two t'amim, can you have a sh'va na immediately following the second ta'am? 

As a starting point, let's take a simpler case:  For a word that has one ta'am, can a sh'va na follow the ta'am?  The only such words that I can think of are nasog aHor.  For example, in the sedra that we just completed, we have וַיֹּ֣אמְרוּ לָ֔הּ   Or, in Ruth:    וְר֖וּת דָּ֥בְקָה בָּֽהּ  (Pardon the lack of clarity of the text; there is a kamatz and mer'cha under the dalet.)

The problem is, I believe that nasog aHor can only occur on a m'sharet.  But in a two-ta'am word, the second ta'am is, I think, always a mafsik, which would preclude nasog aHor.

So, unless there is some other possibility for a one-ta'am word to have a sh'va na follow the ta'am, I would say there is no two-ta'am word where a sh'va na immediately follows the second ta'am.

Jay