Sheva na mnemonic
Art Werschulz
The following came in over the Leining list <lei...@yahoogroups.com>.
I had never heard of it before, and you might find it to be a cute
mnemonic to help you distinguish between sheva na and sheva nach. It
was communicated to to the list by Pinchas Leiser. Feel free to pass
this along to any ba'alei qeriya that you know who might like this.
Note that this is a mnemonic rule, and it may not cover all
possibilities. Some exceptions are noted.
The sheva na has five possibilities, summarzsed by Aleph, Beit,
Gimmel, Dalet, Hey.
Aleph: if the sheva is on the first letter of a word.
Beit: if there are two consecutive sheva's, the second one is always na.
Gimmel: after a tenua gedola (long vowel). Marshall Schwartz adds
that this applies only if the consonant carrying the tenua gedola also
has a meteg.
Dalet: if the consonant above it has a dagesh.
Hey: (like the lameds in "Hallelu" or the nuns in "Hineni") if there
are two identical consecutive consonants and the first takes a sheva,
then this sheva is na.
He also gives a mnemonic for recognizing a tenua gedola, namely, a
tenua gedola consists of a pair of glyphs. Hence:
patach: single dash, tenua ketana
qamatz: pair of dashes, tenua gedola
qamatz qatan is somewhat like a shortened cholam, and hence
it's an exception
chirik qatan (no yud): single dot, tenua ketana
chirik gadol (with a yud): single dot+yud (pair), tenua gedola
segol: three dots, tenua ketana
cholam: vav + raised dot (pair), tenua gedola
however, the vav-less cholam is also a tenua gedola, so this
is an exception
shuruq: three dots, tenua qetana
however, Marshall Schwartz points out that there are
some rare exceptions where a shva following a shuruq
with meteg is na (at least according to Tiqqun
Simanim).
qubutz: vav + internal dot (pair), tenua gedola
Enjoy.
--
Art Werschulz (a...@comcast.net)
207 Stoughton Ave Cranford NJ 07016
(908) 272-1146
Micha Berger
: The following came in over the Leining list <lei...@yahoogroups.com>.
: ... It was communicated to to the list by Pinchas Leiser...
: The sheva na has five possibilities, summarzsed by Aleph, Beit,
: Gimmel, Dalet, Hey.
I follow this rule system too, it's the Vilna Gaon's. Ben Yehudah picked
it up for modern Hebrew -- either because the Gaon's students were among
the earliest settlers, or because it's the least complicated system. They
don't explain, though, why every siddur (except mine) that marks sheva
na (voiced sheva) has the last word of "Barechu" as "Hamevorach" (sheva na)
under the mem.
aleph: a sh'va in the first letter (e.g. sh'ma)
beis: the second of two sh'va's are next to eachother in the middle of the
word (e.g. Mord'chai)
gimel: after a tenu'ah *G*edolah [long vowel] (e.g. Peen'chas)
Gra: Except for the melupum at the begining of a word (e.g. uvrachah)
Heidenheim: Only a tenu'ah gedolah that doesn't have the word's only
trop. Or perhaps: Not if the tenu'ah gedolah denotes an
accent mil'eil.
dalet: under an os degushah (e.g. dab'ru)
hei: under the first of two osios hadomos [identical letters] (e.g. ran'nu)
vuv: Heidenheim: a sh'va following a meseg (mnemonic: which looks like a vuv)
Given RAP's "mem" for nach (below), this must mean only where the
meseg is alongside a tenu'ah that isn't qalah.
zayin: Heidenheim: after a nasag achor, where the neginah moved (zaz)
ches: Heidenheim: chatufos [the shortened patach, kamatz or segol]
tes: Heidenheim: a sh'va that follows the first neginah, in a word that has
two t'amim (see rule gimel)
yud: Heidenheim: any yud that has a sheva after a vav hahipuch; eg: vayedaber
Off another source I found the following:
According to the Razah: A sh'va immediately before an undotted b,g,d,k,p,t
(yaat'fu)
Heidenheim's four rules for nach (the Gra defines nach by default); mnemonic:
"miqnos" -> "miknos":
mem: meteg under a tenu'ah qalah (not qetanah!) the sheva after it is nach.
eg: vihyitem, shimu, tichyu. See rule vuv, above.
quf: following a tenu'ah kitanah that doesn't have a meseg (the flip-side
of gimel + vuv, above)
nun: after a neginas ta'am, even if also after a tenu'ah gedolah (see gimel)
samech: at the end of a word, regardless of dageish or previous sh'va.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Until he extends the circle of his compassion
mi...@aishdas.org to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - Albert Schweitzer
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Art Werschulz <a...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> : The following came in over the Leining list <lei...@yahoogroups.com>.
> : ... It was communicated to to the list by Pinchas Leiser...
>
> : The sheva na has five possibilities, summarzsed by Aleph, Beit,
> : Gimmel, Dalet, Hey.
>
> I follow this rule system too, it's the Vilna Gaon's. Ben Yehudah
> picked it up for modern Hebrew -- either because the Gaon's students
> were among the earliest settlers, or because it's the least
> complicated system. They don't explain, though, why every siddur
> (except mine) that marks sheva na (voiced sheva) has the last word
> of "Barechu" as "Hamevorach" (sheva na) under the mem.
Isn't that mem a degushah?
Serious and a bit esoteric rules, snipped. Thanks.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
B. Tkatch
>Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> writes:
>> Art Werschulz <a...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> : The following came in over the Leining list <lei...@yahoogroups.com>.
>> : ... It was communicated to to the list by Pinchas Leiser...
>>
>> : The sheva na has five possibilities, summarzsed by Aleph, Beit,
>> : Gimmel, Dalet, Hey.
>>
>> I follow this rule system too, it's the Vilna Gaon's. Ben Yehudah
>> picked it up for modern Hebrew -- either because the Gaon's students
>> were among the earliest settlers, or because it's the least
>> complicated system. They don't explain, though, why every siddur
>> (except mine) that marks sheva na (voiced sheva) has the last word
>> of "Barechu" as "Hamevorach" (sheva na) under the mem.
>
>Isn't that mem a degushah?
No, it is not. I thought the rule was after a hay hay'diah. Yet,
"Hyshuah" is without the line. So, i just follow the Artscroll on
those.
>Serious and a bit esoteric rules, snipped. Thanks.
The rules are actually very easy. The "real" rule is, at the end of a
syllable, it is nuch, not at the end, it is na. The mneumonic is there
only to discern between the two.
The only exception being "shtay".
Boruch
Tim Meushaw
> The following came in over the Leining list <lei...@yahoogroups.com>.
> I had never heard of it before, and you might find it to be a cute
> mnemonic to help you distinguish between sheva na and sheva nach. It
> was communicated to to the list by Pinchas Leiser. Feel free to pass
> this along to any ba'alei qeriya that you know who might like this.
It's also helpful to anyone learning how to speak Hebrew properly. :-)
> Note that this is a mnemonic rule, and it may not cover all
> possibilities. Some exceptions are noted.
>
> The sheva na has five possibilities, summarzsed by Aleph, Beit,
> Gimmel, Dalet, Hey.
I hadn't seen this before, but it's helpful. But, the meaning of the
mnemonic isn't completely clear. Could someone correct me if I err in
my trying to understand it?
> Aleph: if the sheva is on the first letter of a word.
Aleph is the first letter of the alephbet, so sheva on the first letter?
> Beit: if there are two consecutive sheva's, the second one is always na.
Bet is the 2nd letter, so if 2 shevas are next to each other?
> Gimmel: after a tenua gedola (long vowel). Marshall Schwartz adds
> that this applies only if the consonant carrying the tenua gedola also
> has a meteg.
Tenua *g*edola? That one'll be harder for me, as I still can't figure
out what makes a vowel long versus short.
> Dalet: if the consonant above it has a dagesh.
*D*alet, *D*agesh? And the rules of remembering where a dagesh goes are
just as bad. ;-)
> Hey: (like the lameds in "Hallelu" or the nuns in "Hineni") if there
> are two identical consecutive consonants and the first takes a sheva,
> then this sheva is na.
*H*ey, *H*allelu?
> He also gives a mnemonic for recognizing a tenua gedola, namely, a
> tenua gedola consists of a pair of glyphs. Hence:
> patach: single dash, tenua ketana
> qamatz: pair of dashes, tenua gedola
> qamatz qatan is somewhat like a shortened cholam, and hence
> it's an exception
> chirik qatan (no yud): single dot, tenua ketana
> chirik gadol (with a yud): single dot+yud (pair), tenua gedola
> segol: three dots, tenua ketana
> cholam: vav + raised dot (pair), tenua gedola
> however, the vav-less cholam is also a tenua gedola, so this
> is an exception
> shuruq: three dots, tenua qetana
> however, Marshall Schwartz points out that there are
> some rare exceptions where a shva following a shuruq
> with meteg is na (at least according to Tiqqun
> Simanim).
> qubutz: vav + internal dot (pair), tenua gedola
Huh. I completely didn't understand this section at first, mostly
because I never remember the names of the vowels. But except for the
exceptions (don't get me started on my anger at qamatz qatan), I'll have
to concentrate more on this.
Thanks, Art. Very helpful post!
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
R
>
> The rules are actually very easy. The "real" rule is, at the end of a
> syllable, it is nuch, not at the end, it is na. The mneumonic is there
> only to discern between the two.
>
> The only exception being "shtay".
Shtey, shtaim(-esrei), shtayim: To which rule are these words an
exception? Are you saying that the shin in these words is has a
shva nuch, and they are an exception to the rule that at the
beginning of a word a shva is always na? If so, are you sure?
Perhaps the shva is really na in these words and not an exception
to this rule, and the exception in these words is that the second
letter (tav) is degusha, which is an exception to the rule that
the letters BGDKFS are rafa following a shva na.
Tim Meushaw
> I follow this rule system too, it's the Vilna Gaon's. Ben Yehudah picked
> it up for modern Hebrew -- either because the Gaon's students were among
> the earliest settlers, or because it's the least complicated system. They
> don't explain, though, why every siddur (except mine) that marks sheva
> na (voiced sheva) has the last word of "Barechu" as "Hamevorach" (sheva na)
> under the mem.
So, what's the right answer? Is it Hamevorach, or Hamvorach? This
could be the one I hear most often said both ways, and I suspect there's
a "right" answer, but I don't know it. :-)
Thanks,
Micha Berger
:> (except mine) that marks sheva na (voiced sheva) has the last word
:> of "Barechu" as "Hamevorach" (sheva na) under the mem.
: Isn't that mem a degushah?
No it is not dotted (ie doubled to serve as the close of the
previous syllable and the start of the nect). Nor are all the "ham-"
words ("haMelekh HAMromam levado mei'az, HAMshubach veHAMfo'ar...")
However, they do get a meseg (gei'ah, in the terminology used by the
ba'alei mesorah, ie a stress mark). Which fits Heidenheim's rules.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - Richard Bach
Micha Berger
: No, it is not. I thought the rule was after a hay hay'diah. Yet,
: "Hyshuah" is without the line. So, i just follow the Artscroll on
: those.
Did you see a source for a hei hayedi'ah rule? Rather, it's the meseg rule
(Heidenheim's rule "zayin", for a moved [zaz] stress) applied even though
most texts don't bother printing the mark. I should have mentioned that
the stress is not noted in any printed siddur that I know, even though
the folk at <mes...@aishdas.org> say it's there.
:>Serious and a bit esoteric rules, snipped. Thanks.
: The rules are actually very easy. The "real" rule is, at the end of a
: syllable, it is nuch, not at the end, it is na. The mneumonic is there
: only to discern between the two.
Since Hebrew has no blends (except possibly the /ts/ of tzaddi), like
English's /tr/ (train), /ld/ (cold), etc... That's not a rule, that's
a restatement of the fact. The schwa sound of a sheva na connects the
consonants into a syllable. A consonant with no subsequent vowel sound
(ie sheva nach) has to be the end of a syllable.
: The only exception being "shtay".
Prehaps because it comes from "ashtei".
Micha Berger
: Shtey, shtaim(-esrei), shtayim: To which rule are these words an
: exception? Are you saying that the shin in these words is has a
: shva nuch, and they are an exception to the rule that at the
: beginning of a word a shva is always na? If so, are you sure?
R' Chaim Vilozhiner reporets that the Gra said "Shtei". (Again, as per the
mevinim on <mus...@aishdas.org>.
-mi
S. Neubort
>
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:13:06 +0000 (UTC), B. Tkatch
>
>
> Prehaps because it comes from "ashtei".
I have heard this one before. I am not at all convinced. Where in
Tanach (or other ancient JEWISH literature) do we find the word
"ashtei" used to signify two (or twelve). AFAIK, ashtei occurs
only in conjunction with "asar" and it adds ONE (not two) to the
asar, making eleven (not twelve). It is one of the sources for
the notion that kol hamosif goreia; shtei-asar if we ignore the
mixed gender would mean twelve; adding an ayin to it reduces it
to eleven. Admittedly, that is more in the realm of drush than
formal linguistics.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Is there a source in ancient JEWISH literature
where ashtei is used to mean two? I would be much obliged if
someone could point one out to me (note that I am looking for a
source in ancient Jewish literature; not something in some ofher
semitic or hamitic language, and not something that some
contemporary lingust opines, but an actual quote from an ancient
Jewish text).
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Hi all.
>
> The following came in over the Leining list <lei...@yahoogroups.com>.
> I had never heard of it before, and you might find it to be a cute
> mnemonic to help you distinguish between sheva na and sheva nach. It
> was communicated to to the list by Pinchas Leiser. Feel free to pass
> this along to any ba'alei qeriya that you know who might like this.
>
> Note that this is a mnemonic rule, and it may not cover all
> possibilities. Some exceptions are noted.
>
> The sheva na has five possibilities, summarzsed by Aleph, Beit,
> Gimmel, Dalet, Hey.
>
> Aleph: if the sheva is on the first letter of a word.
>
> Beit: if there are two consecutive sheva's, the second one is always na.
>
> Gimmel: after a tenua gedola (long vowel). Marshall Schwartz adds
> that this applies only if the consonant carrying the tenua gedola also
> has a meteg.
>
> Dalet: if the consonant above it has a dagesh.
>
> Hey: (like the lameds in "Hallelu" or the nuns in "Hineni") if there
> are two identical consecutive consonants and the first takes a sheva,
> then this sheva is na.
I learned these in a course in Hebrew in Brooklyn College over 30
years ago. I have since heard this rule in the name of the GR"A.
> He also gives a mnemonic for recognizing a tenua gedola, namely, a
> tenua gedola consists of a pair of glyphs.
What's a "glyph"?
> Hence:
> patach: single dash, tenua ketana
> qamatz: pair of dashes, tenua gedola
> qamatz qatan is somewhat like a shortened cholam, and hence
> it's an exception
> chirik qatan (no yud): single dot, tenua ketana
> chirik gadol (with a yud): single dot+yud (pair), tenua gedola
> segol: three dots, tenua ketana
> cholam: vav + raised dot (pair), tenua gedola
> however, the vav-less cholam is also a tenua gedola, so this
> is an exception
> shuruq: three dots, tenua qetana
> however, Marshall Schwartz points out that there are
> some rare exceptions where a shva following a shuruq
> with meteg is na (at least according to Tiqqun
> Simanim).
> qubutz: vav + internal dot (pair), tenua gedola
>
> Enjoy.
Aha, a "glyph" is a line, dot, what-have-you, used in writing.
Correct?
Micha Berger
: "ashtei" used to signify two (or twelve). AFAIK, ashtei occurs
: only in conjunction with "asar" and it adds ONE (not two) to the
It denotes the second number in the tens. At least, that was how it
was explained to me. Why not join mesorah and ask there?
-mi
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
> :> They don't explain, though, why every siddur
> :> (except mine) that marks sheva na (voiced sheva) has the last word
> :> of "Barechu" as "Hamevorach" (sheva na) under the mem.
>
> : Isn't that mem a degushah?
>
> No it is not dotted (ie doubled to serve as the close of the
> previous syllable and the start of the nect). Nor are all the "ham-"
> words ("haMelekh HAMromam levado mei'az, HAMshubach veHAMfo'ar...")
But shouldn't they be "degusha" since they follow a "heh" hayidia?
> Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission
> mi...@aishdas.org on Earth is finished:
> http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't.
> Fax: (413) 403-9905 - Richard Bach
Who is Richard Bach?
Micha Berger
: But shouldn't they be "degusha" since they follow a "heh" hayidia?
No, but they should be stressed. A secondary stress if the word has three syllables, so the meseg mark is usually omitted.) Which fits Heidenheim's rules.
:> Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission
:> mi...@aishdas.org on Earth is finished:
:> http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't.
:> Fax: (413) 403-9905 - Richard Bach
: Who is Richard Bach?
A Christian author. Wrote "Jonathan Livingston Seagull". (See google for
more info.)
As I just wrote Moshe in private mail, the same point was made by the
Alter miKelm. As soon as I find a good quotable from the alter, I will
replace Bach's.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Art Werschulz <a...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The following came in over the Leining list <lei...@yahoogroups.com>.
>> I had never heard of it before, and you might find it to be a cute
>> mnemonic to help you distinguish between sheva na and sheva nach. It
>> was communicated to to the list by Pinchas Leiser. Feel free to pass
>> this along to any ba'alei qeriya that you know who might like this.
>
> It's also helpful to anyone learning how to speak Hebrew properly. :-)
>
>> Note that this is a mnemonic rule, and it may not cover all
>> possibilities. Some exceptions are noted.
>>
>> The sheva na has five possibilities, summarzsed by Aleph, Beit,
>> Gimmel, Dalet, Hey.
>
> I hadn't seen this before, but it's helpful. But, the meaning of
> the mnemonic isn't completely clear. Could someone correct me if
> I err in my trying to understand it?
I'll try.
>> Aleph: if the sheva is on the first letter of a word.
>
> Aleph is the first letter of the alephbet, so sheva on the first letter?
Yes.
>> Beit: if there are two consecutive sheva's, the second one is always na.
>
> Bet is the 2nd letter, so if 2 shevas are next to each other?
Yes, the _2nd_ is na.
>> Gimmel: after a tenua gedola (long vowel). Marshall Schwartz adds
>> that this applies only if the consonant carrying the tenua gedola also
>> has a meteg.
>
> Tenua *g*edola?
Yes.
> That one'll be harder for me, as I still can't figure
> out what makes a vowel long versus short.
That's a _different_ problem :-)
>> Dalet: if the consonant above it has a dagesh.
>
> *D*alet, *D*agesh?
Yes.
> And the rules of remembering where a dagesh goes are just as bad. ;-)
But usually (almost always?) the dagesh is printed.
>> Hey: (like the lameds in "Hallelu" or the nuns in "Hineni") if there
>> are two identical consecutive consonants and the first takes a sheva,
>> then this sheva is na.
>
> *H*ey, *H*allelu?
No. "Hey" is the first letter in the words "Hadomos" which means
"similar".
HTH
Micha Berger
: So, what's the right answer? Is it Hamevorach, or Hamvorach? This
: could be the one I hear most often said both ways, and I suspect there's
: a "right" answer, but I don't know it. :-)
Since most people rule like Heidenheim, it should be "haMevorakh"
(cap M because we're descriving G-d, "the Blessed"), with the "vo"
getting primary stress and the "me" getting secondary.
I would think the Vilna Gaon would have you say "haMvorakh", secondary
stress on the "ham". After all, none of his five rules apply, as (1)
the mem is not the first letter, (2) the sheva is not the first of a
pair, (3) it follows a patach, a short vowel, and the mem is neither
(4) dotted nor the (5) first of a pair of mem's.
However, even my Nusach haGra siddurim have the sheva marked as na.
-mi
--
Henry Goodman
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message news:2004Jan1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> Tim Meushaw <meu...@pobox.com> writes:
> > Art Werschulz <a...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The following came in over the Leining list <lei...@yahoogroups.com>.
> >> I had never heard of it before, and you might find it to be a cute
> >> mnemonic to help you distinguish between sheva na and sheva nach. It
> >> was communicated to to the list by Pinchas Leiser. Feel free to pass
> >> this along to any ba'alei qeriya that you know who might like this.
> >
>
> >> Dalet: if the consonant above it has a dagesh.
> >
> > *D*alet, *D*agesh?
>
> Yes.
>
> > And the rules of remembering where a dagesh goes are just as bad. ;-)
>
> But usually (almost always?) the dagesh is printed.
>
Not in the Sifrei Torah I lein from :-)
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Henry Goodman
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:bts5ib$anap3$1...@ID-113975.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:41:39 +0000 (UTC), Tim Meushaw <meu...@pobox.com>
wrote:
> : So, what's the right answer? Is it Hamevorach, or Hamvorach? This
> : could be the one I hear most often said both ways, and I suspect there's
> : a "right" answer, but I don't know it. :-)
>
> Since most people rule like Heidenheim, it should be "haMevorakh"
> (cap M because we're descriving G-d, "the Blessed"), with the "vo"
> getting primary stress and the "me" getting secondary.
>
> I would think the Vilna Gaon would have you say "haMvorakh", secondary
> stress on the "ham". After all, none of his five rules apply, as (1)
> the mem is not the first letter, (2) the sheva is not the first of a
> pair, (3) it follows a patach, a short vowel, and the mem is neither
> (4) dotted nor the (5) first of a pair of mem's.
>
> However, even my Nusach haGra siddurim have the sheva marked as na.
>
If the sheva on the mem is nach then the bet would need a dagesh as it would
start a syllable.
Lawrence Szenes-Strauss
In most cases, the definite article "ha" results in a dagesh in the
letter following it, which in turn causes a sh'va under letter
carrying the dagesh to be na`. This rule isn't entirely consistant,
though, and for some reason seems disinclined to apply to the letter
mem. Still, most authorities seem to agree that, while the mem in the
last word of Barechu is not doubled ("ham-me-vo-rach"), as would be
the case if it contained a dagesh chazak, it is pronounced as its own
syllable. Therefore, ha-me-vo-rach.
Backup evidence: as someone pointed out earlier -- I can't see who,
because my newsreader lets me write or read at one time, but not both
-- a closed syllable "ham" as the opening would put a dagesh qal in
the bet, making it "ham-bo-rach."
~L, much too early in the morning.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Tim Meushaw <meu...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> : So, what's the right answer? Is it Hamevorach, or Hamvorach? This
> : could be the one I hear most often said both ways, and I suspect there's
> : a "right" answer, but I don't know it. :-)
>
> Since most people rule like Heidenheim, it should be "haMevorakh"
> (cap M because we're descriving G-d, "the Blessed"), with the "vo"
> getting primary stress and the "me" getting secondary.
>
> I would think the Vilna Gaon would have you say "haMvorakh", secondary
> stress on the "ham". After all, none of his five rules apply, as (1)
> the mem is not the first letter, (2) the sheva is not the first of a
> pair, (3) it follows a patach, a short vowel, and the mem is neither
> (4) dotted nor the (5) first of a pair of mem's.
>
> However, even my Nusach haGra siddurim have the sheva marked as na.
I still don't understand why that Mem is not dotted. Don't letters
after a Hey HaYidia get a dot? Maybe it's a "virtual" dot? (Only half
in jest)
Micha Berger
: I still don't understand why that Mem is not dotted. Don't letters
: after a Hey HaYidia get a dot? Maybe it's a "virtual" dot? (Only half
: in jest)
I don't know why there is no dot. My question was based on their not
being one.
The dot allows for "ham-me-vorakh", with the break between syllables
being mid mem. Since the 2nd half of the mem starts a syllable, it must
be followed by a vowel. Thus the sheva must be pronounced. Without a dot,
the mem can't fit in both. The reason for the rule doesn't hold.
Heidenheim actually has somthing you can consider that "'virtual' dot",
the moved stress dictates that the newly stressed "ha-" must be an open
syllable (ending in a vowel), making the mem exclusively part of "mev".
But even if so, I see no parallel in the Gra.
-mi
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905
ahaleva
> Tim Meushaw <meu...@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<slrnbvqu7e....@athens.meushaw.com>...
> > On 2004-01-08, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> > > I follow this rule system too, it's the Vilna Gaon's. Ben Yehudah picked
> > > it up for modern Hebrew -- either because the Gaon's students were among
> > > the earliest settlers, or because it's the least complicated system. They
> > > don't explain, though, why every siddur (except mine) that marks sheva
> > > na (voiced sheva) has the last word of "Barechu" as "Hamevorach" (sheva na)
> > > under the mem.
> >
> > So, what's the right answer? Is it Hamevorach, or Hamvorach? This
> > could be the one I hear most often said both ways, and I suspect there's
> > a "right" answer, but I don't know it. :-)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tim
>
> In most cases, the definite article "ha" results in a dagesh in the
> letter following it, which in turn causes a sh'va under letter
> carrying the dagesh to be na`. This rule isn't entirely consistant,
> though, and for some reason seems disinclined to apply to the letter
> mem. Still, most authorities seem to agree that, while the mem in the
> last word of Barechu is not doubled ("ham-me-vo-rach"), as would be
> the case if it contained a dagesh chazak, it is pronounced as its own
> syllable. Therefore, ha-me-vo-rach.
Which authorities? Where?
This position puts a tenu'a qetanna in an open syllable with a
secondary accent at best. I am not sure this is either masoretic or
grammatically acceptable. Certainly not if the ma'amid is not there.
Oriental Jews often pronounce this as "hambhorakh." Just like
"le'olam adonai debharkha nissabh bashamayim" or "malkhuthkha malkhuth
kol olamim."
> Backup evidence: as someone pointed out earlier -- I can't see who,
> because my newsreader lets me write or read at one time, but not both
> -- a closed syllable "ham" as the opening would put a dagesh qal in
> the bet, making it "ham-bo-rach."
There is no need for a dagesh rafe in the beth, as the prior letter
(=mem) is not wholly plosive. This is an instance of what grammarians
(among them R. David Qamhi, I recall) call sheva merahef. No dagesh
rafe after a mem, lamed, resh, taf rafe, yod, etc. with a sheva naha.
It is well attested in the Miqra.
Ronnie