User:Ubufox/2

h 3. The vowels of the first class are, with the exception of ־ֶי in the middle and ־ָה, ־ָא, ־ֶה at the end of the word (§ 9 a–d, f), represented only by vowel signs, but the long vowels of the I- and U-class largely by vowel letters. The vowel sound to which the letter points is determined more precisely by the vowel sign standing before, above, or within it. Thus—

י may be combined with Ṣērê, Qameṣ, S^egôl (־ִי, ־ֵי, ־ֶי).

ו with Šûrĕq and Ḥōlĕm (וּ and וֹ).^[1]

In Arabic the long a also is regularly expressed by a vowel letter, viz. ʾAlĕph (־ָא), so that in that language three vowel letters correspond to the three vowel classes. In Hebrew א is rarely used as a vowel letter; see § 9 b and § 23 g.

i 4. The omission of the vowel letters when writing î, û, ê, ô is called scriptio defectiva in contrast to scriptio plena. קוֹל, קוּם are written plene, קֹלֹת, קֻם defective.

Cf. Bardowitz, Studien zur Gesch. der Orthogr. im Althebr., 1894; Lidzbarski, Ephem., i. 182, 275; Marmorstein, ‘Midrasch der vollen u. defekt. Schreibung,’ in ZAW. 1907, p. 33 ff.

k So far as the choice of the full or defective mode of writing is concerned, there are certainly some cases in which only the one or the other is admissible, Thus the full form is necessary at the end of the word, for û, ô, ō, î, ê, ē, as well as for è in חֹזֶה &c. (§ 9 f), also generally with â, ā (cf. however § 9 d), e.g. קָֽטְלוּ, קָטַ֫לְתִּי, יָדִי, מַלְכֵי. (But the Masora requires in Jer 26, 44; Ezr 6; 2 Ch 32 גּוֹיֵ instead of גּוֹיֵי; Zp 2 גּוֹיִ [perhaps an error due to the following י] for גּוֹיִי; Is 40 וְקוֹיֵ [followed by י] for וְקוֹיֵי; Jer 38 בְּלוֹיֵ for בְּלוֹיֵי.) On the other hand the defective writing is common when the letter, which would have to be employed as a vowel letter, immediately precedes as a strong consonant, e.g. גּוֹיִם (nations) for גּוֹיִים, מִצְוֹת (commandments) for מִצְווֹת.

l

That much is here arbitrary (see § 7 g), follows from the fact that sometimes the same word is written very differently, e.g. הֲקִימוֹתִי Ez 16: הֲקִמֹתִי and also הֲקִמוֹתִי Jer 23; cf. § 25 b. Only it may be observed,

(a) That the scriptio plena in two successive syllables was generally avoided; cf. e.g. נָבִיא but נְבִאִים; צַדִּיק, but צַדִּקִים; קוֹל, קֹלוֹת; יְהוֹשֻׁעַ; מְצָאֻ֫הוּ.

(b) That in the later Books of the O.T. (and regularly in post-biblical Hebrew) the full form, in the earlier the defective, is more usual.

m 5. In the cognate dialects, when a vowel precedes a vowel-letter which is not kindred (heterogeneous), e.g. ־ָו, ־ֵו, ־ִיו, ־ַי, ־ָי, a diphthong (au, ai)^[2] is formed if the heterogeneous vowel be a. This is also to be regarded as the Old Hebrew pronunciation, since it agrees with the vocalic character of ו and י (§ 5 b, note 2). Thus such words as וָו, חַי, גּוֹי, עָשׂוּי, גֵּו, בַּ֫יִת are not to be pronounced according to the usual Jewish custom^[3] as vāv, ḥay, gôy, ʿāsûy, gēv, bayith (or even as vaf, &c.; cf. modern Greek av af, ev ef for αὐ, εὐ), but with the Italian Jews more like wāu, ḥai, &c. The sound of ־ָיו is the same as ־ָו, i.e. almost like āu, so that ־ָו is often written defectively for ־ָיו.

§9. Character of the several Vowels.

a Numerous as are the vowel signs in Hebrew writing, they are yet not fully adequate to express all the various modifications of the vowel sounds, especially with respect to length and shortness. To understand this better a short explanation of the character and value of the several vowels is required, especially in regard to their length and shortness as well as to their changeableness (§§ 25, 27).

I. First Class. A-sound.

1. Qameṣ (־ָ), when it represents a long a, is, by nature and origin, of two kinds:—

(1) The essentially long â (in Arabic regularly written ־ָא), which is not readily shortened and never wholly dropped (§ 25 c), e.g. כְּתָב k^ethâbh (writing); very seldom with a following א, as רָאשׁ 2 S 12, (see the examples in § 72 p).^[4]

b The writing of קָאם Ho 10 for קָם would only be justifiable, if the ā of this form were to be explained as a contraction of ăă cf. however § 72 a; דָּאג Neh 13 for דָּגּ (dāg) is certainly incorrect.—The rarity of the â in Hebrew arises from the fact that it has for the most part become an obtuse ô; see below, q.

c (2) ā, lengthened only by position (i.e. tone-long or at all events lengthened under the influence of the tone, according to the laws for the formation of syllables, § 27 e–h), either in the tone-syllable itself (or in the secondary tone-syllable indicated by Mèthĕg, see below), or just before or after it. This sound is invariably lengthened from an original ă,^[5] and is found in open syllables, i.e. syllables ending in a vowel (§ 26 b), e.g. לְךָ, קָטַל, יָקוּם, אָסִיר (Arab. lăkă, qătălă, yăqûmŭ, ʾăsîrŭ), as well as in closed syllables, i.e. those ending in a consonant, as יָד, כּוֹכָב (vulgar Arab. yăd, kaukăb). In a closed syllable, however, it can only stand when this has the tone, דָּבָ֫ר, עוֹלָ֫ם; whereas in an open syllable it is especially frequent before the tone, e.g. דָּבָ֫ר, זָקֵ֫ן, לָכֶ֫ם. Where the tone is moved forward or weakened (as happens most commonly in what is called the construct state of nouns, cf. § 89 a) the original short ă (Pathaḥ) is retained in a closed syllable, while in an open syllable it becomes Š^ewa (§ 27 i): חָכָם, constr. state חֲכָם (ḥ^akhăm); דָּבָר, דְּבַר (d^ebhăr); קָטַל, קְטָלָם. For examples of the retention, in the secondary tone-syllable, of ā lengthened from ă, see § 93 xx.

d In some terminations of the verb (תָּ in the 2nd sing. masc. perf., ןָ in the 2nd pl. fem. of the imperat., as well as in the 3rd and 2nd pl. fem. of the imperf.), in אַתָּ thou (masc.) and in the suffixes ךָ and הָ, the final ā can stand even without a vowel letter. A ה is, however, in these cases (except with הָ) frequently added as a vowel letter.

On ־ָ for ŏ see below, f.

e 2. Pathaḥ, or short ă, stands in Hebrew almost exclusively in a closed syllable with or without the tone (קָטַ֫ל, קְטַלְתֶּ֫ם). In places where it now appears to stand in an open syllable the syllable was originally closed, and a helping vowel (ă, ĭ) has been inserted after the second radical merely to make the pronunciation easier, e.g. נַ֫חַל (ground-form naḥl), בַּ֫יִת (Arab. bait), see § 28 d, and with regard to two cases of a different kind, § 25 g, h. Otherwise ă in an open syllable has almost without exception passed into ā (־ָ), see above, c.

On the very frequent attenuation of ă to ĭ, cf. below, h. On the rare, and only apparent union of Pathaḥ with א (־ַא), see § 23 d, end. On ă as a helping-vowel, § 22 f (Pathaḥ furtivum), and § 28 e.

f 3. S^egôl (ĕ, è [ǟ]) by origin belongs sometimes to the second, but most frequently to the first vowel class (§ 27 o, p, u). It belongs to the first class when it is a modification of a (as the Germ. Bad, pl. Bäder; Eng. man, pl. men), either in a toneless syllable, e.g. יֶדְכֶם (for yadkhèm), or with the tone, e.g. אֶ֫רֶץ from ʾarṣ, קֶ֫רֶן Arab. qărn, קֶ֫מַח Arab. qămḥ. This S^egôl is often retained even in the strongest tone-syllable, at the end of a sentence or of an important clause (in pause), as מֶ֑לֶךְ, צֶֽדֶק (mǟ́lä̆kh, sǟ́dä̆q). As a rule, however, in such cases the Pathaḥ which underlies the S^egôl is lengthened into Qameṣ, e.g. קָ֑מַח, קָֽרֶן. A S^egôl apparently lengthened from Š^ewa, but in reality traceable to an original ă, stands in pausal forms, as פֶּֽרִי (ground-form păry), יֶֽהִי (yăhy), &c. On the cases where a י (originally consonantal) follows this S^egôl, see § 75 f, and § 91 k.

II. Second Class. I- and E-sounds.

g 4. The long î is frequently even in the consonantal writing indicated by י (a fully written Ḥireq ־ִי); but a naturally long î can be also written defectively (§ 8 i), e.g. צַדִּיק (righteous), plur. צַדִּקִים ṣaddîqîm; יִירָא (he fears), plur. יִֽרְאוּ. Whether a defectively written Ḥireq is long may be best known from the origin of the form; often also from the nature of the syllable (§ 26), or as in יִֽרְאוּ. from the Metheg attached to it (§ 16 f).^{[critic 1]}

h 5. The short Ḥireq (always^[6] written defectively) is especially frequent in sharpened syllables (קִטֵּל, אִמִּי) and in toneless closed syllables (מִזְמוֹר psalm); cf. however וַיִּשְׁבְּ in a closed tone-syllable, and even וַיִּ֫פֶן, with a helping S^egôl, for wayyiphn. It has arisen very frequently by attenuation from ă, as in דִּבְרֵי from original dăbărê, צִדְקִי (ground-form ṣădq),^[7] or else it is the original ĭ, which in the tone-syllable had become ē, as in אֹֽיִבְךָ (thy enemy) from אֹיֵב (ground-form ʾâyĭb).^[8] It is sometimes a simple helping vowel, as in בַּ֫יִת, § 28 e.

The earlier grammarians call every Ḥireq written fully, Ḥireq magnum; every one written defectively, Ḥireq parvum,—a misleading distinction, so far as quantity is concerned.

i 6. The longest ê ־ֵי (more rarely defective ־ֵ, e.g. עֵנֵי for עֵינֵי Is 3; at the end of a word also ־ה) is as a rule contracted from ־ַי ay (ai), § 7 a, e.g. הֵיכָל (palace), Arab. and Syriac haikal.

k 7. The Ṣere without Yôdh mostly represents the tone-long ē, which, like the tone-long ā (see c), is very rarely retained except in and before the tone-syllable, and is always lengthened from an original ĭ. It stands in an open syllable with or before the tone, e.g. סֵ֫פֶר (ground-form sĭphr) book, שֵׁנָ֫ה (Arab. sĭnăt) sleep, or with Metheg (see § 16 d, f) in the secondary tone-syllable, e.g. שְׁאֵֽלָתִי my request, נֵֽלְכָה let us go. On the other hand in a closed syllable it is almost always with the tone, as בֵּן son, אִלֵּם dumb.

l Exceptions: (a) ē is sometimes retained in a toneless closed syllable, in monosyllabic words before Maqqeph, e.g. עֵֽץ־ Nu 35, as well as in the examples of nāsôg ʾāḥôr mentioned in § 29 f (on the quantity cf. § 8 b 3 end); (b) in a toneless open final syllable, Ṣere likewise occurs in examples of the nāsôg ʾāḥôr, as יֵ֫צֵא Ex 16; cf. Ju 9.

m 8. The S^egôl of the I(E)-class is most frequently an ĕ modified from original ĭ, either replacing a tone-long ē which has lost the tone, e.g. תֶּן־ from תֵּן (give), יֹֽצֶרְךָ (thy creator) from יֹצֵר, or in the case discussed in § 93 o, הֶלְקִי, עֶזְרִי from the ground-forms ḥilq, ʿizr; cf. also § 64 f. S^egôl appears as a simple helping-vowel in cases such as סֵ֫פֶר for siphr, יִ֫גֶל for yigl (§ 28 e).

III. Third Class. U- and O-sounds.

n 9. For the U-sound there is—

(1) the long û, either (a) written fully, וּ Šureq, e.g. גְּבוּל (boundary), or (b) defectively written ־ֻ Qibbûṣ גְּבֻלוֹ, יְמֻתוּן;

(2) the short ŭ, mostly represented by Qibbûṣ, in a toneless closed syllable and especially common in a sharpened syllable, in e.g. שֻׁלְחָן (table), סֻכָּה (booth).

o

Sometimes also ŭ in a sharpened syllable is written וּ, e.g. הוּכָּה ψ 102, יוּלָּ֑ד Jb 5, כּוּלָּם Jer. 31, מְשׂוּכָּתוֹ Is 5, עֲרוּמִּים Gn 2 for הֻכָּה, &c.

For this u the LXX write o, e.g. עֲדֻלָּם Ὀδολλάμ, from which, however, it only follows, that this ŭ was pronounced somewhat indistinctly. The LXX also express the sharp Ḥireq by ε, e.g. אִמֵּר=Ἐμμήρ. The pronunciation of the Qibbûṣ like the German ü, which was formerly common, is incorrect, although the occasional pronunciation of the U-sounds as ü in the time of the punctators is attested, at least as regards Palestine^[9]; cf. the Turkish bülbül for the Persian bulbul, and the pronunciation of the Arabic dunyā in Syria as dünyā.

p 10. The O-sound bears the same relation to U as the E does to I in the second class. It has four varieties:—

(1) The ô which is contracted from aw (=au), § 7 a, and accordingly is mostly written fully; וֹ (Holem plenum), e.g. שׁוֹט (a whip), Arab. sauṭ, עוֹלָה (iniquity) from עַוְלָה. More rarely defectively, as שֹֽׁרְךָ (thine ox) from שׁוֹר Arab. ṯaur.

q (2) The long ô which arose in Hebrew at an early period, by a general process of obscuring, out of an original â,^[10] while the latter has been retained in Arabic and Aramaic. It is usually written fully in the tone-syllable, defectively in the toneless, e.g. קֹטֵל Arab. qâtĭl. Aram. qâṭēl, אֱלוֹהַּ Arab. ʾĭlâh, Aram. ʾ^ĕlâh, plur. אֱלֹהִים; שׁוֹק (leg), Arab. sâq; גִּבּוֹר (hero), Arab. găbbâr; חוֹתָם (seal), Arab. ḫâtăm; רִמּוֹן (pomegranate), Arab. rŭmmân; שִׁלְטוֹן (dominion), Aram. שֻׁלְטָן and שָׁלְטָן Arab. sŭlṭân; שָׁלוֹם (peace), Aram. שְׁלָם, Arab. sălâm. Sometimes the form in â also occurs side by side with that in ô as שִׁרְיָן and שִׁרְיוֹן (coat of mail; see however § 29 u). Cf. also § 68 b.

r (3) The tone-long ō which is lengthened from an original ŭ, or from an ŏ arising from ŭ, by the tone, or in general according to the laws for the formation of syllables. It occurs not only in the tone-syllable, but also in an open syllable before the tone, e.g. קֹדֶשׁ (ground-form qŭdš) sanctuary; בֹּרַךְ for burrakh, יִלְקֹטוּן ψ 104, as well as (with Metheg) in the secondary tone-syllable; אֹֽהָלִים, פֹּֽעֲלוֹ. But the original ŏ (ŭ) is retained in a toneless closed syllable, whereas in a toneless open syllable it is weakened to Š^ewâ. Cf. כֹּל all, but כָּל־ (kŏl), כֻּלָּם (kŭllām); יִקְטֹל, יִקְטָלְךָ and יִקְטְלוּ, where original ŭ is weakened to Š^ewâ: yiqṭ^elû, Arab. yaqtŭlû. This tone-long ō is only as an exception written fully.

s (4) ־ָ Qameṣ-ḥaṭuph represents ŏ (properly å̆, cf. § 8 a, note 2) modified from ŭ and is therefore classed here. It stands in the same relation to Ḥolem as the S^egôl of the second class to Sere, כָּל־ kŏl, וַיָּ֫קָם wayyāqŏm. On the distinction between this and Qameṣ, see below, u.

t 11. The following table gives a summary of the gradation of the three vowel-classes according to the quantity of the vowels:—

First Class: A.	Second Class: I and E.	Third Class: U and O.
־ָ original â (Arabic ־ָא).	־ֵי ê, from original ay (ai). ־ִי or ־ִ long î.	וֹ ô, from original aw (au). וֹ or ־ֹ ô obscured from â. וֹ or ־ֻ û.
־ָ tone-long ā (from original ă) chiefly in the tone-syllable but also just before it.	־ֵ tone-long ē (from ĭ) generally in the tone-syllable but also just before it.	־ֹ tone-long ō (from original ŭ in the tone-syllable, otherwise in an open syllable.
־ֶ (as a modification of ă) sometimes a tone-long è, sometimes ĕ ־ַ short ă. [־ִ ĭ attenuated from ă; see h.] Utmost weakening to ־ֲ a, ־ֱ ĕ, ־ְ e.	־ֶ ĕ. ־ִ short ĭ. Utmost weakening to ־ֲ a, ־ֱ ĕ, or ־ְ e.	־ָ ŏ, modified from ŭ. ־ֻ short ŭ, especially in a sharpened syllable. Utmost weakening to ־ֲ a, ־ֱ ĕ, ־ֳ o, or ־ְ e.

u

Rem. On the distinction between Qameṣ and Qameṣ-ḥaṭuph.^[11]

According to § 8 a, long ā or å̄ (Qameṣ) and short ŏ or å̆ (Qameṣ-ḥaṭuph) are in manuscripts and printed texts generally expressed by the same sign ( ָ ), e.g. קָם qām, כָּל־ kŏl. The beginner who does not yet know the grammatical

origin of the words in question (which is of course the surest guide), may depend meanwhile on the following principal rules:—

1. The sign ־ָ^[12] is ŏ in a toneless closed syllable, since such a syllable can have only a short vowel (§ 26 o). The above case occurs—

(a) When Š^ewâ follows as a syllable-divider, as in חָכְמָ֫ה ḥŏkh-mā́ (wisdom), אָכְלָ֫ה ʾŏkh-lā́ (food). With Metheg ־ָ is ā (å̄) and according to the usual view stands in an open syllable with a following Š^ewâ mobile, e.g. אָֽכְלָה ʾā-kh^elā́ (she ate); but cf. § 16 i.

(b) When a closed syllable is formed by Dageš forte, e.g. חָנֵּ֫נִי ḥŏnnēnî (have mercy upon me); but בָּֽתִּ֫ים (with Metheg, § 16 f ζ) bâttîm.

(c) When the syllable in question loses the tone on account of a following Maqqēph (§ 16 a), e.g. כָּל־הָֽאָדָם kŏl-hā-ʾādā́m (all men).

In ψ 35 and Pr 19 Maqqēph with כָּל is replaced by a conjunctive accent (Mer^ekha); so by Darga, Ju 19 with סְעָד, and Ez 37 with וַיִּקְרָם (so Baer after Qimḥi; ed. Mant., Ginsburg, Kittel ויקרַם).

(d) In a closed final syllable without the tone, e.g. וַיָּ֫קָם wayyā́qŏm (and he stood up).—In the cases where â or ā in the final syllable has become toneless through Maqqēph (§ 16 a) and yet remains, e.g. כְּתָֽב־הַדָּת Est 4, שָֽׁת־לִי Gn 4, it has a Metheg in correct manuscripts and printed texts.

In cases like הָ֫לְאָה, לָ֫מָּה lā́mmā, the tone shows that ־ָ is to be read as ā.

v

2. The cases in which ־ָ appears to stand in an open syllable and yet is to be read as ŏ require special consideration. This is the case, (a) when Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ follows, e.g. פָּֽעֳלוֹ his work, or simple vocal Š^ewâ, e.g. דָּֽרְבָן ox goad; בְּעָֽבְרוֹ Jo 4; שָֽׁמְרָה (so ed. Mant., Ginsb.) preserve ψ 86, cf. 16 and the cases mentioned in § 48 i, n., and § 61 f, n.; other examples are Ob 111, Ju 14); Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ follows in לִמְשָֽׁחֲךָ (so Ginsburg; Baer לִמְשָֽׁחֳךָ) 1 S 15, לַֽהֲרָֽגֲךָ 24:11, and יִֽפְגָֽשֲׁךָ (so Baer, Gn 32, others יִפְגָּֽשְׁךָ); (b) before another Qameṣ-ḥaṭuph, e.g. פָּֽעָלְךָ֫ thy work; on אָֽרָה־לִּי and קָֽבָה־לִּי Nu 23, see § 67 o; (c) in the two plural forms קָֽדָשִׁים sanctuaries and שָֽׁרָשִׁים roots (also written קֳד׳ and שֳׁר׳). In all these cases the Jewish grammarians regard the Metheg accompanying the ־ָ as indicating a Qāmeṣ raḥabh (broad Qameṣ) and therefore read the ־ָ as ā; thus pā-^olô, dā-r^ebān, pā-ŏl^ekhā, qā-dāšîm. But neither the origin of these forms, nor the analogous formations in Hebrew and in the cognate languages, nor the transcription of proper names in the

LXX, allows us to regard this view as correct. It is just possible that Qameṣ is here used loosely for å̄, as the equivalent of ō, on the analogy of פֹּֽעֲלוֹ &c., § 93 q. As a matter of fact, however, we ought no doubt to divide and read pŏʿ^o-lô (for pŏʿ-lô), pŏʿŏ-l^ekhā, qŏdā-ším.—Quite as inconceivable is it for Metheg to be a sign of the lengthening into ā in בָּֽחֳרִי־אָֽף (Ex 11), although it is so in בָּֽאֳנִי bā-ʾ^onî (in the navy), since here the ā of the article appears under the ב.

§10. The Half Vowels and the Syllable Divider (Š^ewâ).

a 1. Besides the full vowels, Hebrew has also a series of vowel sounds which may be called half vowels (Sievers, Murmelvokale). The punctuation makes use of these to represent extremely slight sounds which are to be regarded as remains of fuller and more distinct vowels from an earlier period of the language. They generally take the place of vowels originally short standing in open syllables. Such short vowels, though preserved in the kindred languages, are not tolerated by the present system of pointing in Hebrew, but either undergo a lengthening or are weakened to Š^ewâ. Under some circumstances, however, the original short vowel may reappear.

b To these belongs first of all the sign ־ְ, which indicates an extremely short, slight, and (as regards pronunciation) indeterminate vowel sound, something like an obscure half ĕ (^e). It is called Š^ewâ,^[13] which may be either simple Š^ewâ (Š^ewâ simplex) as distinguished from the compound (see f), or vocal Š^ewâ (Š^ewâ mobile) as distinguished from Š^ewâ quiescens, which is silent and stands as a mere syllable divider (see i) under the consonant which closes the syllable.

c The vocal Š^ewâ stands under a consonant which is closely united, as a kind of grace-note, with the following syllable, either (a) at the beginning of the word, as קְטֹל q^eṭōl (to kill), מְמַלֵּא m^emallē (filling), or (b) in the middle of the word, as קֽוֹטְלָה qô-ṭ^elā, יִקְטְלוּ yiq-ṭ^elû.

d In former editions of this Grammar Š^ewâ was distinguished as medium when it followed a short vowel and therefore stood in a supposed ‘loosely closed’ or ‘wavering’ syllable, as in מַלְכֵי, בִּנְפֹל. According to Sievers, Metrische Studien, i. 22, this distinction must now be abandoned. These syllables are really closed, and the original vowel is not merely shortened, but entirely elided. The fact that a following B^egadk^ephath letter (§ 6 n) remains spirant instead of taking Dageš lene, is explained by Sievers on the ‘supposition that the change from hard to spirant is elder than the elision of the vowel, and that the prehistoric malakai became malakhai before being shortened to malkhē’. In cases like כִּסְאוֹ (from כִּסֵּא), יִקְחוּ (from יִקַּח) the dropping of the Dageš forte shows that the original vowel is completely lost.

e The sound ĕ has been adopted as the normal transcription of simple Š^ewâ mobile, although it is certain that it often became assimilated in sound to other vowels. The LXX express it by ε, or even by η, כְּרוּבִים χερουβίμ, הַלְלוּ־יָהּ ἀλληλούια, more frequently by α, שְׁמוּאֵל, Σαμουήλ, but very frequently by assimilating its indeterminate sound to the following principal vowel, e.g. סְדֹם Σόδομα, שְׁלֹמֹה Σολομών (as well as Σαλωμών), צְבָאוֹת Σαβαώθ, נְתַנְאֵל Ναθαναήλ.^[14] A similar account of the pronunciation of Š^ewâ is given by Jewish grammarians of the Middle Ages.^[15]

How the Š^ewâ sound has arisen through the vanishing of a full vowel is seen, e.g. in בְּרָכָה from bărăkă, as the word is still pronounced in Arabic. In that language the full short vowel regularly corresponds to the Hebrew Š^ewâ mobile.

f 2. Connected with the simple Š^ewâ môbile is the compound Š^ewâ or Ḥâṭēph (correptum), i.e. a Š^ewâ the pronunciation of which is more accurately fixed by the addition of a short vowel. There are three Š^ewâ-sounds determined in this way, corresponding to the three vowel classes (§ 7 a):—

( ־ֲ) Ḥâṭēph-Páthăḥ, e.g. חֲמוֹר ḥ^amôr, ass.

( ־ֱ) Ḥâṭēph-S^egôl, e.g. אֱמֹר ʾ^emōr, to say.

( ־ֳ) Ḥâṭēph-Qāmĕṣ, e.g. חֳלִי, ḥ^olî, sickness.

These Ḥâṭēphs, or at least the first two, stand especially under the four guttural letters (§ 22 l), instead of a simple Š^ewâ mobile, since these letters by their nature require a more definite vowel than the indeterminate simple Š^ewâ mobile. Accordingly a guttural at the beginning of a syllable, where the Š^ewâ is necessarily vocal, can never have a mere Š^ewâ simplex.

On ־ֲ the shorter Ḥaṭef as compared with ־ֱ cf. § 27 v.

g Rem. A. Only ־ֲ and ־ֳ occur under letters which are not gutturals. Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ is found instead of simple Š^ewâ (especially Š^ewâ mobile), chiefly (a) under strengthened consonants, since this strengthening (commonly called doubling) causes a more distinct pronunciation of the Š^ewâ mobile, שִׁבֲּלֵי branches, Zc 4. According to the rule given by Ben-Asher (which, however, appears to be unknown to good early MSS. and is therefore rejected by Ginsburg, Introd., p. 466; cf. Foote, Johns Hopkins Univ. Circulars, June 1903, p, 71 f.), the Ḥaṭeph is necessary^[16] when, in a strengthened medial consonant with Š^ewâ (consequently not in cases like וַיְהִי, &c.), preceded by a Pathaḥ, the sign of the strengthening (Dageš forte) has fallen away, e.g. הַֽלֲלוּ (but ed. Mant. and Ginsb. הַלְלוּ praise ye! וַתְּאַֽלֲצֵהוּ Ju 16; no less universally, where after a consonant with Š^ewâ the same consonant follows (to separate them more sharply, and hence with a Metheg always preceding), e.g. סוֹרֲרִים ψ 68; קִֽלֲלָֽתְךָ (ed. Mant. and Ginsb. קִלְל׳ Gn 27 (but not without exceptions, e.g. חִקְקֵי־ Ju 5, Is 10; צִלְלֵי Jer 6, and so always הִנְנִי behold me, הִנְנוּ behold us; on כְ before the suffix ךָ, see § 20 b); also in certain forms under Kaph and Rêš after a long vowel and before the tone, e.g. תֹּֽאכֲלֶ֫נָּה Gn 3; בָּֽרֲכִי ψ 103; וַתְּשָֽׁרֲתֵ֫הוּ 1 K 1 (but וְיִתְבָּ֫רְכוּ ψ 72, cf. Jer 4, 1 Ch 29, because the tone is thrown back on to the ā. After ē Š^ewâ remains even before the tone, as בֵּֽרְכוּ &c.; but before Maqqef אֵֽלֲכָה־נָּא Baer Ex 4, 2 S 15 Jer 40, but ed. Mant., Jabl., Ginsb. אֵֽלְ׳)^[17]; (b) under initial sibilants after וּ copulative, e.g. וּֽזֲהַב Gn 2; cf. Jer 48; וּֽסֲחַר Is 45; וּֽשֲׂדֵה Lv 25; וּֽשֲׁקָה Gn 27; וּֽשֲׁמָע Nu 23, Is 37, Dn 9, cf. Ju 5, 1 K 14, 2 K 9, Jb 14, Ec 9—to emphasize the vocal character of the Š^ewâ. For the same reason under the emphatic ט in הֽוּטֲלוּ Jer 22; cf. Jb 33; after Qôph in וּֽקֲדָרְתִּי (so Baer, but ed. Mant., Jabl., Ginsb. וּקְ׳) Ez 23; וּֽקֲרָב־ ψ 55; cf. Jer. 32; under Rêš in אֵֽרֲדָה (ed. Mant. אֵֽרְ׳). Gn 18; וּֽרֲעֵם ψ 28; even under ת Eze 26^[18]; under ב Est 2; וּבֵֽרֲכֶךָּ so Jabl., Ginsb., but ed. Mant. וּבֵֽרְ׳ Dt 24; (c) under sonants, sibilants or Qôph after ĭ, e.g. יִֽצֲחַק Gn 21, cf. 30 and Ez 21 (under ק); אִֽמֲרוֹת ψ 12; הֲתִֽמֲלֹךְ Jer 22; כִֽנֲרוֹת Jos 11; בִּֽסֲבָךְ־ ψ 74, —for the same reason as the cases under b^[19]; according to Baer also in שִֽׁפֲמוֹת 1 S 30; יִֽפְגָֽשֲׁךָ Gn 32 after ŏ (cf. § 9 v), as well as after a in הַֽקֲשִׁיבָה Dn 9; הַֽבֲרָכָה Gn 27; הַֽמֲצֹרָעִים 2 K 7.

h B. The Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ is less restricted to the gutturals than the first two, and stands more frequently for a simple Š^ewâ mobile when an original O-sound requires to be partly preserved, e.g. at the beginning, in רֳאִי (ground-form rŏʾy) vision (cf. § 93 z); כֳּנַנְיָהוּ 2 Ch 31, &c., Q^erê (K^eeth. כונ״); עַמֳּנִיּוֹת Ammonitish women, 1 K 11 (sing. עַמּוֹנִית); יִרְדֳּפֶ֑ךָ for the usual יִרְדְּפֶ֑ךָ Ez 35, from יִרְדֹּף; תִקֳּבֶ֫נּוּ Nu 23, Jer 31, and elsewhere before suffixes, cf. § 60 a; קָדְקֳדוֹ his pate (from קָדְקֹד) ψ 7, &c.; אֶשְׁקֳטָה Is 18 Q^erê. Further, like ־ֲ, it stands under consonants, which ought to have Dageš forte, as in לֻֽקֳחָה (for לֻקְּחָה) Gn 2. In this example, as in וּֽסֳעָ֫דְה 1 K 13; וּֽסֳאָה 2 K 7; and וּֽצֳעָ֫קִי Jer 22, the Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ is no doubt due to the influence of the following guttural as well as of the preceding U-sound. (Elsewhere indeed after וּ in similar cases Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ is preferred, see above, § 78 b; but with לֻקֳחָה cf. also סֻבֳּלוֹ Is 9, 10, 14, where the U-sound must necessarily be admitted to have an influence on the Š^ewâ immediately following.) In וּֽטֳהָר־ (û-ṭ^ohŏr) Jb 17 it is also influenced by the following O-sound. In קָֽסֳמִי 1 S 28 Q^erê, the original form is קְסֹם, where again the ō represents an ŏ. It is only through the influence of a following guttural that we can explain the forms נִקְרֳאָה Est 2; נִֽבֳהָל Pr 28; נִסְרֳחָה Jer 49; אֶפְשֳׂעה Is 27; וָאֶֽשְׁמֳעָה Dn 8; שִֽׁמֳעָה ψ 39; בַּֽסֳעָרָה 2 K 2 (Baer’s ed. also in ver. 11); הַקֳּהָתִים 2 Ch 34 (ed. Mant., Opitius, &c. הַקְּ׳). Finally in most of the examples which have been adduced, the influence of an emphatic sound (ק, ט, cf. also אֲלַקֳּטָה Ru 2, 7), or of a sibilant is also to be taken into account.

i 3. The sign of the simple Š^ewâ ־ְ serves also as a mere syllable divider. In this case it is disregarded in pronunciation and is called Š^ewâ quiescens. In the middle of a word it stands under every consonant which closes a syllable; at the end of words on the other hand it is omitted except in final ך (to distinguish it better from final ן), e.g. מֶלֶךְ king, and in the less frequent case, where a word ends with a mute after another vowelless consonant as in נֵרְדְּ nard, אַתְּ thou fem. (for ’ant), קָטַלְתְּ thou fem. hast killed, וַיַּשְׁקְ and he watered, וַיִּשְׁבְּ and he took captive, אַל־תֵּשְׁתְּ drink thou not; but וַיַרְא, חֵטְא.^[20]

k However, in the examples where a mute closes the syllable, the final Š^ewâ comes somewhat nearer to a vocal Š^ewâ, especially as in almost all the cases a weakening of a final vowel has taken place, viz. אַתְּ ʾatt^e from אַתִּי ʾatt^î (ʾanti), קָטַלְתְּ from קָטַ֫לְתִּי (cf. in this form, the 2nd sing. fem. perf. Qal, even בָּאתְ, after a vowel, Gn 16, Mi 4, &c., according to the readings of Baer), יִשְׁבְּ yišb^e from יִשְׁבֶּה, &c. The Arabic actually has a short vowel in analogous forms. In נֵרְדְּ borrowed from the Indian, as also in קשְׁטְ (qōšṭ) Pr 22; and in אַל־תּוֹסְףְּ ne addas (for which we should expect תּ֫וֹסֶף) Pr 30 the final mute of itself attracts a slight vowel sound.

l Rem. The proper distinction between simple Š^ewâ mobile and quiescens depends on a correct understanding of the formation of syllables (§ 26). The beginner may observe for the present, that

1. Š^ewâ is always mobile
   1. at the beginning of a word (except in שְׁתַּים, שְׁתֵּי § 97 b, note);
   2. under a consonant with Dageš forte, e.g. גִּדְּפוּ gid-d^ephû;
   3. after another Š^ewâ, e.g. יִקְטְלוּ yiqṭ^elû (except at the end of the word, see above, i).
2. Š^ewâ is quiescens
   1. at the end of a word, also in the ךְ;
   2. before another Š^ewâ.

§11. Other Signs which affect the Reading.

Very closely connected with the vowel points are the reading-signs, which were probably introduced at the same time. Besides the diacritical point over שׂ and שׁ, a point is placed within a consonant to show that it has a stronger sound. On the other hand a horizontal stroke (Rāphè) over a consonant is a sign that it has not the stronger sound. According to the different purposes for which it is used the point is either

1. Dageš forte, a sign of strengthening (§ 12); or
2. Dageš lene, a sign of the harder pronunciation of certain consonants (§ 13); or
3. Mappîq, a sign to bring out the full consonantal value of letters which otherwise serve as vowel letters (§ 7 b), especially in the case of ה at the end of the word (§ 14 a).

The Rāphè, which excludes the insertion of any of these points, has almost entirely gone out of use in our printed texts (§ 14 e).

§12. Dageš in general,^[21] and Dageš forte in particular.

Cf. Graetz, ‘Die mannigfache Anwendung u. Bedeut. des Dagesch,’ in Monatsschr. für Gesch. u. Wiss. d. Judent., 1887, pp. 425 ff. and 473 ff.

a

1. Dageš, a point standing in the middle of a consonant,^[22] denotes, according to § 11,

1. the strengthening^[23] of a consonant (Dageš forte), e.g. קִטֵּל qiṭṭēl (§ 20); or
2. the harder pronunciation of the letters בְּגַדְכְּפַת (Dageš lene).

For a variety of the latter, now rarely used in our printed texts, see § 13 c.

b The root דגשׁ in Syriac means to pierce through, to bore through (with sharp iron); hence the name Dageš is commonly explained, solely with reference to its form, by puncture, point. But the names of all similar signs are derived rather from their grammatical significance. Accordingly דגשׁ may in the Masora have the sense: acuere (literam), i.e. to sharpen a letter, as well as to harden it, i.e. to pronounce it as hard and without aspiration. דָּגֵשׁ acuens (literam) would then be a sign of sharpening and hardening (like Mappîq מַפִּיק proferens, as signum prolationis), for which purposes a prick of the pen, or puncture, was selected. The opposite of Dageš is רָפֶה soft, § 14 e, and § 22 n.

c 2. In grammar Dageš forte, the sign of strengthening, is the more important. It may be compared to the sicilicus of the Latins (Lucul̂us for Lucullus) or to the stroke over m̄ and n̄. In the unpointed text it is omitted, like the vowels and other reading signs.

For the different kinds of Dageš forte, see § 20.

§13. Dageš lene.

Ginsburg, Introd., p. 114 ff.: Dagesh and Raphe.

a 1. Dageš lene, the sign of hardening, is in ordinary printed texts placed only within the בְּגַדְכְּפַת letters (§ 6 n) as a sign that they should be pronounced with their original hard sound (without aspiration), e.g. מֶלֶךְ mèlĕkh, but מַלְכּוֹ mal-kô; תָּפַר tāphár, but יִתְפֹּר yith-pōr; שָׁתָה šāthā, but יִשְׁתֶּה yiš-tè.

b 2. The cases in which a Dageš lene is to be inserted are stated in § 21. It occurs almost exclusively at the beginning of words and syllables. In the middle of the word it can easily be distinguished from Dageš forte, since the latter always has a vowel before it, whereas Dageš lene never has; accordingly the Dageš in אַפִּי ʾappî, רַבִּים rabbîm must be forte, but in יִגְדַּל yigdal it is lene.

c A variety of the Dageš lene is used in many manuscripts, as well as in Baer’s editions, though others (including Ginsburg in the first two cases, Introd., pp. 121, 130, 603, 662) reject it together with the Ḥaṭefs discussed in § 10 g. It is inserted in consonants other than the B^egadk^ephath to call attention expressly to the beginning of a new syllable:

1. when the same consonant precedes in close connexion, e.g. בְּכָל־לִּבִּי ψ 9, where, owing to the Dageš, the coalescing of the two Lameds is avoided;
2. in cases like מַחְסִּי ψ 62 = maḥ-sî (not măḥ^a-sî);
3. according to some (including Baer; not in ed. Mant.) in לֹא in the combination לוֹ לֹּא Dt 32, or לֹא לּוֹ Hb 1, 2 &c. (so always also in Ginsburg’s text, except in Gn 38); see also § 20 e and g.

—Delitzsch appropriately gives the name of Dageš orthophonicum to this variety of Dageš (Bibl. Kommentar, 1874, on ψ 94); cf. moreover Delitzsch, Luth. Ztschr., 1863, p. 413; also his Complutensische Varianten zu dem Alttest. Texte, Lpz. 1878, p. 12.

d 3. When Dageš forte is placed in a B^egadk^ephath, the strengthening necessarily excludes its aspiration, e.g. אַפִּי, from אַנְפִּי.

§14. Mappîq and Rāphè.

a 1. Mappîq, llke Dageš, also a point within the consonant, serves in the letters א ה ו י as a sign that they are to be regarded as full consonants and not as vowel letters. In most editions of the text it is only used in the consonantal ה at the end of words (since ה can never be a vowel letter in the middle of a word), e.g. גָּבַהּ gābháh (to be high), אַרְצָהּ ʾarṣāh (her land) which has a consonantal ending (shortened from -hā), different from אַ֫רְצָה ʾárṣā (to the earth) which has a vowel ending.

b Rem. 1. Without doubt such a Hē was distinctly aspirated like the Arabic Hā at the end of a syllable. There are, however, cases in which this ה has lost its consonantal character (the Mappîq of course disappearing too), so that it remains only as a vowel letter; cf. § 91 e on the 3rd fem. sing.

cThe name מַפִּיק means proferens, i.e. a sign which brings out the sound of the letter distinctly, as a consonant. The same sign was selected for this and for Dageš, since both are intended to indicate a hard, i.e. a strong, sound. Hence Rāphè (see e) is the opposite of both.

d 2. In MSS. Mappîq is also found with א, ו, י, to mark them expressly as consonants, e.g. גּוֹיִ (gôy), קָוִ (qāw, qāu), for which וְ is also used, as עֵשָׂוְ, &c. For the various statements of the Masora (where these points are treated as Dageš), see Ginsburg, The Massorah, letter א, § 5 (also Introd., pp. 557, 609, 637, 770), and ‘The Dageshed Alephs in the Karlsruhe MS.’ (where these points are extremely frequent), in the Verhandlungen des Berliner Orientalisten-Kongresses, Berlin, i. 1881, p. 136 ff. The great differences in the statements found in the Masora point to different schools, one of which appears to have intended that every audible א should be pointed. In the printed editions the point occurs only four times with א (אׄ or אּ), Gn 43, Lv 23, Ezr 8 and Jb 33 (רֻאּוּ; where the point can be taken only as an orthophonetic sign, not with König as Dageš forte). Cf. Delitzsch, Hiob, 2nd ed., p. 439 ff.

e 2. Rāphè (רָפֶה i.e. weak, soft), a horizontal stroke over the letter, is the opposite of both kinds of Dageš and Mappîq, but especially of Dageš lene. In exact manuscripts every בגדכפת letter has either Dageš lene or Rāphè, e.g. מֶלֶךְֿ mèlĕkh, תָּפַֿר, שָׁתָֿה. In modern editions (except Ginsburg’s 1st ed.) Rāphè is used only when the absence of a Dageš or Mappîq requires to be expressly pointed out.

§15. The Accents.

aOn the ordinary accents (see below, e), cf. W. Heidenheim, מִשְׁפְּטֵי הַטְּעָמִים [The Laws of the Accents], Rödelheim, 1808 (a compilation from older Jewish writers on the accents, with a commentary); W. Wickes (see also below), טעמי כ״א ספרים [The Accents of the Twenty-one Books], Oxford, 1887, an exhaustive investigation in English; J. M. Japhet, Die Accente der hl. Schrift (exclusive of the books אׄמׄתׄ), ed. by Heinemann, Frankf. a. M. 1896; Prätorius, Die Herkunft der hebr. Accente, Berlin, 1901, and (in answer to Gregory’s criticism in the TLZ. 1901, no. 22) Die Uebernahme der früh-mittelgriech. Neumen durch dis Juden, Berlin, 1902; P. Kahle, ‘Zur Gesch. der hebr. Accente,’ ZDMG. 55 (1901), 167 ff. (1, on the earliest Jewish lists of accents; 2, on the mutual relation of the various systems of accentuation; on p. 179 ff. he deals with the accents of the 3rd system, see above, § 8 g, note); Margolis, art. ‘Accents,’ in the Jewish Encycl., i (1901), 149 ff.; J. Adams, Sermons in Accents, London, 1906.—On the accents of the Books תא״ם (see below, h), S. Baer, תורת אמת [Accentual Laws of the Books אמ״ת], Rödelheim, 1852, and his appendix to Delitzsch’s Psalmencommentar, vol. ii, Lpz. 1860, and in the 5th ed., 1894 (an epitome is given in Baer-Delitzsch’s Liber Psalmorum hebr., Lpz. 1861, 1874, 1880); cf. also Delitzsch’s most instructive ‘Accentuologischer Commentar’ on Psalms 1–3, in his Psalmencommentar of 1874, as well as the numerous contributions to the accentual criticism of the text, &c., in the editions of Beer and Delitzsch, and in the commentaries of the latter; W. Wickes, טעמי אמ״ת [Accents of the Poet. Books], Oxford, 1881; Mitchell, in the Journal of Bibl. Lit., 1891, p. 144 ff.; Beer and Strack, Dikduke ha-ṭ^eamim, p. 17 ff.

b 1. As Prätorius (see above) has convincingly shown, the majority of the Hebrew accents, especially, according to Kahle (see above), the ‘Conjunctivi’, were adopted by the Jews from the neums and punctuation-marks found in Greek gospel-books, and, like these, their primary purpose was to regulate minutely the public reading of the sacred text. The complete transformation and amplification of the system (in three different forms, see § 8 g, note), which soon caused the Jews to forget its real origin, is clearly connected with the gradual change from the speaking voice in public reading to chanting or singing. The accents then served as a kind of musical notes.^[24] Their value as such has, however, with the exception of a few traces, become lost in transmission. On the other hand, according to their original design they have also a twofold use which is still of the greatest importance for grammar (and syntax), viz. their value (a) as marking the tone, (b) as marks of punctuation to indicate the logical (syntactical) relation of single words to their immediate surroundings, and thus to the whole sentence.^[25]

c 2. As a mark of the tone the accent stands almost invariably (but see below, e) with the syllable which has the principal tone in the word. This is usually the ultima, less frequently the penultima. Amongst the Jewish grammarians a word which has the tone on the ultima is called Milraʿ (Aram. מִלְרַע i.e. accented below^[26]), e.g. קָטַ֫ל qāṭál; a word which has the tone on the penultima is Milʿêl (Aram. מִלְעֵיל, accented above), e.g. מֶ֫לֶךְ mèlĕkh. Besides this, in many cases a secondary tone is indicated in the word by Mèthĕg (cf. § 16). Examples such as נַ֣עַמְדָה יָ֑חַד Is 50 (cf. 40:18, Ex 15, Jb 12, La 2) are regarded by the Jewish grammarians as even proparoxytone.^[27]

d3. As marks of interpunctuation the accents are subdivided into those which separate (Distinctivi or Domini) and those which connect (Conjunctivi or Servi). Further a twofold system of accentuation is to be noted: (a) the common system found in twenty-one of the Books (the כ״א i.e. twenty-one), and (b) that used in the first three Books of the Hagiographa, viz. Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, for which the vox memor, is אֱמֶת, from the initial consonants of the names, תְּהִלִּים Psalms, מִשְׁלֵי Proverbs, אִיּוֹב Job, or more correctly, according to their original sequence, תא״ם (תְּאֹם twin), so that טַֽעֲמֵי תא״ם means the accents (sing. טַעַם) of these three Books. The latter system is not only richer and more complicated in itself, but also musically more significant than the ordinary accentuation.

e

I. The Common Accents.

Preliminary remark. The accents which are marked as prepositive stand to the right over or under the initial consonant of the word; those marked as postpositive, to the left over or under the last consonant. Consequently in both cases the tone-syllable must be ascertained independently of the accent (but cf. below, l).

fA. Disjunctive Accents (Distinctivi or Domini).

^[28]

1. ( ־ֽ ) סִלּוּק Sillûq (end) always with the tone-syllable of the last word before Sôph pāsûq (׃), the verse-divider, e.g. הָאָֽרֶץ׃.

2. ( ־֑ ) אַתְנָח ʾAthnâḥ or אַתְנָֽחְתָּא ʾAthnaḥtā (rest), the principal divider within the verse.

3 a. ( ־֒ ) סְגֽוֹלְתָּא S^egôltā, postpositive, marks the fourth or fifth subordinate division, counting backwards from ʾAthnâḥ (e.g. Gn 1).

3 b. ( ־֓ ) שַׁלְשֶׁלֶת Šalšèleth (i.e. chain), as disjunctive, or Great Šalšèleth, distinguished by the following stroke^[29] from the conjunctive in the poetic accentuation, is used for S^egôltā (seven times altogether) when this would stand at the head of the sentence; cf. Gn 19, &c.

4 a. ( ־֕ ) זָקֵף גָּדוֹל Zâqēph gādôl, and

4 b. ( ־֔ ) זָקֵף קָטוֹן Zâqēph qāṭôn. The names refer to their musical character. As a disjunctive, Little Zâqēph is by nature stronger than Great Zâqēph; but if they stand together, the one which comes first is always the stronger.

5. ( ־֖ ) טִפְחָא Ṭiphḥā or טַרְחָא Ṭarḥā, a subordinate disjunctive before Sillûq and ʾAthnâḥ, but very often the principal disjunctive of the whole verse instead of ʾAthnâḥ; always so when the verse consists of only two or three words (e.g. Is 2), but also in longer verses (Gn 3).

6. ( ־ׄ ) רְבִיעַ R^ebhîaʿ.

7. ( ־֮ ) זַרְקָא Zarqā, postpositive.

8 a. ( ־֙ ) פַּשְׁטָא Pašṭā, postpositive,^[30] and

8 b. ( ־֚ ) יְתִיב Y^ethîbh, prepositive, and thus different from M^ehuppākh. Y^ethîbh is used in place of Pašṭā when the latter would stand on a monosyllable or on a foretoned word, not preceded by a conjunctive accent.

9. ( ־֛ ) תְּבִיר T^ebhîr.

10 a. ( ־֜ ) גֶּרֶשׁ Gèreš or טֶרֶס Ṭères, and

10 b. ( ־֞ ) גְּרָשַׁ֫יִם G^erāšáyim^[31] or Double Gèreš, used for Gèreš, when the tone rests on the ultima, and ʾAzlā does not precede.

11 a. ( ־֡ ) פָּזֵר Pâzēr, and

11 b. ( ־֟ ) פָּזֵר גָּדוֹל Pâzēr gādôl (Great Pâzēr) or קַרְנֵי פָרָה Qarnê phārā (cow-horns), only used 16 times, for special emphasis.

12. ( ־֠ ) תְּלִישָׁא גְדוֹלָה T^eliša g^edôlā or Great T^eliša, prepositive.

13. ( ־֣ ) לְגַרְמֶהּ L^egarmēh, i.e. Mûnaḥ (see below) with a following stroke.

gB. Conjunctive Accents (Conjunctivi or Servi).

14. ( ־֣ ) מוּנַח Mûnaḥ.

15. ( ־֤ ) מְהֻפָּךְ M^ehuppākh or מַהְפָּךְ Mahpākh.

16 a. ( ־֥ ) מֵירְכָא or מֵֽארְכָא Mêr^ekhā, and

16 b. ( ־֦ ) מ׳ כְפוּלָה Mêr^ekhā kh^ephûl̄â or Double Mêr^ekhā.

17. ( ־֧ ) דַּרְגָּא Dargā.

18. ( ̀־ָ ) אַזְלָא ʾAzlā, when associated with Gèreš (see above) also called Qadmā.

19. ( ־֩ ) תְּלִישָׁא קְטַנָּה T^eliša q^eṭannā or Little T^eliša, postpositive.

20. ( ־֪ ) גַּלְגַּל Galgal or יֶרַח Yèraḥ.

[21. ( ־֖ ) מְאַיְּלָא M^eʾayy^elā or מָֽאיְלָא Mây^elā, a variety of Ṭiphḥa, serves to mark the secondary tone in words which have Sillûq or ʾAthnâḥ, or which are united by Maqqēph with a word so accentuated, e.g. וַיֵּצֵ֖א־נֹ֑חַ Gn 8.]

II. The Accents of the Books תא״ם.

h A. Distinctivi.

1. ( ־ֽ ) Sillûq (see above, I, 1).

2. ( ־֫־֥ ) עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד ʿÔlè w^eyôrēd,^[32] a stronger divider than

3. ( ־֑ ) ʾAthnâḥ (see above, I, 2). In shorter verses ʾAthnâh suffices as principal distinctive; in longer verses ʿÔlè w^eyôrēd serves as such, and is then mostly followed by ʾAthnâḥ as the principal disjunctive of the second half of the verse.

4. ( ־ֹ ) R^ebhi^aʿ gādôl (Great R^ebhi^aʿ).

5. ( ־֜֗ ) R^ebhi^aʿ mugrāš, i.e. R^ebhi^aʿ with Gèreš on the same word.

6. ( ־֓ ) Great Šalšèleth (see above, I. 3 b).

7. ( ־֮ ) צִנּוֹר Ṣinnôr (Zarqā), as postpositive, is easily distinguished from צִנּוֹרִית Ṣinnôrîth similarly placed, which is not an independent accent, but stands only over an open syllable before a consonant which has Mêr^ekhā or Mahpākh.

8. ( ־ׄ ) R^ebhi^aʿ qāṭôn (Little R^ebhi^aʿ) immediately before ʿÔlè w^eyôrēd.

9. ( ־֭ ) דְּחִי D^eḥî or Ṭiphḥā, prepositive, to the right underneath the initial consonant, e.g. הַ֭גּוֹי (consequently it does not mark the tone-syllable).

10. ( ־֡ ) Pâzēr (see above, I, 11 a).

11 a. ( ־֤ ) M^ehuppākh l^egarmēh, i.e. Mahpākh with a following stroke.

11 b. ( ־֨ ) ʿAzlā l^egarmēh, i.e. ʿAzlā with a following stroke.

i

B. Conjunctivi.

12. ( ־֥ ) Mêr^ekhā (see above, I. 16 a).

13. ( ־֧ ) Mûnaḥ (see above, I. 14).

14. ( ־֬ ) עִלּוּי ʿIllûy or Mûnaḥ superior.

15. ( ־֖ ) טַרְחָא Ṭarḥā (under the tone-syllable, and thus easily distinguished from No. 9).

16. ( ־֪ ) Galgal or Yèraḥ (see above, I. 20).

17. ( ־֤ ) M^ehuppākh or Mahpākh (see above, I. 15).

18. ( ̀־ ) ʾAzlā (see above, I. 18).

19. ( ־֓ ) Šalšèleth q^eṭannā (Little Šalšèleth). The last three are distinguished from the disjunctives of the same name by the absence of the stroke.

[20. ( ־֮ ) Ṣinnôrîth, see above under No. 7.]

Remarks on the Accents

I. As Signs of the Tone.

k 1. As in Greek and English (cf. εἰμί and εἶμι, cómpact and compáct) so also in Hebrew, words which are written with the same consonants are occasionally distinguished by the position of the tone, e.g. בָּנ֫וּ banú (they built), בָּ֫נוּ bánu (in us); קָ֫מָה qáma (she stood up), קָמָ֫ה qamá (standing up, fem.).

l 2. As a rule the accent stands on the tone-syllable, and properly on its initial consonant. In the case of prepositives and postpositives alone (see above, e) the tone-syllable must be ascertained independently of the accent. In many MSS. as well as in Baer’s editions of the text, the postpositive sign in foretoned words stands also over the tone-syllable after the analogy of Pašṭā (see above, I. 8 a, note); e.g. טֶ֮רֶם֮ יִשְׁכָּ֒בוּ֒ Gn 19; so the prepositive sign in cases like וַ֠יְהִ֠י Gn 8.

II. As Signs of Punctuation.

m 3. In respect to this use of the accents, every verse is regarded as a period which closes with Sillûq, or in the figurative language of the grammarians, as a province (ditio) which is governed by the great distinctive at the end. According as the verse is long or short, i.e. the province great or small, there are several subordinate Domini of different grades, as governors of greater and smaller divisions. When possible, the subdivisions themselves are also split up into parts according to the law of dichotomy (see Wickes, The Accents of the Twenty-one Books, p. 29 ff).—When two or more equivalent accents (Zâqēph, R^ebhi^aʿ) occur consecutively, the accent which precedes marks a greater division than the one which follows; cf. e.g. the Zâqēph, Gn 1^a.

n 4. In general a conjunctive (Servus) unites only such words as are closely connected in sense, e.g. a noun with a following genitive or a noun with an

adjective. For the closest connexion between two or more words Maqqēph is added (§ 16 a).

o 5. The consecution of the several accents (especially the correspondence of disjunctives with their proper conjunctives) conforms in the most minute details to strict rules, for a further investigation of which we must refer to the above-mentioned works. Here, to avoid misunderstanding, we shall only notice further the rule that in the accentuation of the books תא״ם, the R^ebhi^aʿ mugrāš before Sillûq, and the D^eḥi before ʾAthnâḥ, must be changed into conjunctives, unless at least two toneless syllables precede the principal disjunctive. For this purpose Š^ewâ mobile after Qameṣ, Ṣere, or Ḥolem (with Metheg^[33]) is to be regarded as forming a syllable. After ʿOlè w^eyôrēd the ʾAthnâḥ does not necessarily act as pausal (cf. Delitzsch on ψ 45). The condition of our ordinary texts is corrupt, and the system of accents can only be studied in correct editions [see Wickes' two treatises].

p 6. A double accentuation occurs in Gn 35, from וישכב onward (where the later accentuation, intended for public reading, aims at uniting vv. 22 and 23 into one, so as to pass rapidly over the unpleasant statement in v. 22); and in the Decalogue, Ex 20; Dt 5. Here also the later (mainly superlinear) accentuation which closes the first verse with עבדים (instead of פני) is adopted simply for the purposes of public reading, in order to reduce the original twelve verses (with sublinear accentuation) to ten, the number of the Commandments. Thus עֲבָדִים at the end of v. 2 has Silluq^[34] (to close the verse) in the lower accentuation, but in the upper, which unites vv. 2-6 (the actual words of God) into a single period, only R^ebhi^aʿ. Again פני, regarded as closing v. 3, is pointed פָּנָֽי (pausal Qameṣ with Silluq^[35]), but in the upper accentuation it is פָּנַ֗י with Pathaḥ because not in pause. (Originally there may have been a third accentuation requiring עֲבָדִ֑ים and פָּנָֽי, and thus representing vv. 2 and 3 as the first commandment.) Further the upper accentuation unites vv. 8-11 into one period, while in vv. 12-15 the lower accentuation combines commandments 5-8 into one verse. Cf. Geiger, Urschrift u. Übersetsungen der Bibel, p. 373 ; Japhet, op. cit., p. 158, and esp. K. J. Grimm, Johns Hopkins Univ. Circ. xix (May, 1900), no. 145. [See also Wickes, Prose Accentuation, 130 f., 87 n. (who, however, regards the superlinear, Babylonian system as the earlier); and Ginsburg, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 76, 78. In Ginsburg’s Hebrew Bible, ed. 2 (1908), pp. 108 f., 267 f., the two systems of division are printed in extenso, in parallel columns—the 10 verses of the superlinear (Babylonian) system consisting (in Exodus) of v. (as numbered in ordinary texts), and the 12 verses of the sublinear (Palestinian) system, consisting of v..—S. R. D.]

§16. Of Maqqēph and Mèthĕg.

a These are both closely connected with the accents.

1. Maqqēph (מַקֵּף i.e. binder) is a small horizontal stroke between the upper part of two words which so connects them that in respect of tone and pointing they are regarded as one, and therefore have only one accent. Two, three, or even four words may be connected in this way, e.g. כָּל־אָדָ֫ם every man, אֶת־כָּל־עֵ֫שֶׂב every herb, Gn 1, אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ all that he had, Gn 25.

b Certain monosyllabic prepositions and conjunctions, such as אֶל־ to, עַד־ until, עַל־ upon, עִם־ with, אַל־ ne, אִם־ if, whether, מִן־ from, פֶּן־ lest, are almost always found with a following Maqqēph, provided they have not become independent forms by being combined with prefixes, e.g. מֵעַל, מֵעִם, in which case Maqqēph as a rule does not follow. Occasionally Maqqēph is replaced by a conjunctive accent (see above, § 9 u, 1 c), as, according to the Masora, in Dt 27, 2 S 20, Jer 25, 29, Ec 9 in the case of אֶ֥ל כָּל־; ψ 47, 60, Pr 3 in the case of אֶת־ the objective particle. Longer words are, however, connected by Maqqēph with a following monosyllable, e.g. הִתְהַלֶּךְ־נֹֽחַ Gn 6, וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן Gn 1; or two words of more than one syllable, e.g. שִׁבְעָֽה־עָשָׂר seventeen, Gn 7. Cf. the Greek proclitics ἐν, ἐκ, εἰς, εἰ, ὡς, οὐ, which are atonic, and lean on the following word.

c 2. Mèthĕg^{[critic 2]} (מֶ֫תֶג i.e. a bridle), a small perpendicular stroke under the consonant to the left of the vowel, indicates most frequently the secondary stress or counter-tone, as opposed to the principal tone marked by the accents. It serves, however, in other cases to point out that the vowel should not be hastily passed over in pronunciation, but should be allowed its full sound. Hence other names of Mèthĕg are Maʾ^arîkh, i.e. lengthener, and Gaʿyā, i.e. raising of the voice, which is Great Gaʿyā with long vowels, otherwise Little Gaʿyā.^[36]

d It is divided into: 1. The light Mèthĕg. This is subdivided again into (α) the ordinary Mèthĕg of the counter-tone, as a rule in the second (open) syllable before the tone, e.g. הָֽאָדָ֫ם (cf. also such cases as מֶֽלֶךְ־צֹר); but also in the third when the second is closed, e.g. הָֽאַרְבָּעִ֫ים (also in such cases as עֶֽבֶד־הַמֶּלֶךְ), and when the third is not suitable for it, even in the fourth (open) syllable before the tone. This Mèthĕg may be repeated in the fourth syllable before the tone, when it already stands in the second, e.g. שָֽׁבֻעֹ֥תֵיכֶ֫ם. Finally it is always added to the vowel of an open ultima, which is joined by Maqqēph to a word beginning with a toneless syllable and so without Mèthĕg (e.g. בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל, on the other hand רִשְׁפֵי־קָ֑שֶׁת, לֹא־אֶֽהְיֶה), or to a word beginning with Š^ewâ before the tone-syllable, e.g. מִֽי־לְךָ֫, שְׁלֹמֹֽה־בְנִ֫י &c.; the object being to prevent the Š^ewâ from becoming quiescent.

e The ordinary light Mèthĕg is omitted with a movable וּ copulative, consequently we do not find וּֽבָנִים, &c. (nor even וּֽבְנֵי, &c., contrary to b, α; but וּֽזֲהַב^{[critic 3]}, &c., according to b, δ, cf. § 10 g b).

f (b) The firm or indispensable Mèthĕg. (α) With all long vowels (except in certain cases, וּ copulative, see above), which are followed by a Š^ewâ mobile preceding the tone-syllable; e.g. יִֽרְאוּ, יִֽשְׁנוּ &c. (β) To emphasize a long vowel in a closed syllable immediately before Maqqēph, e.g. שָֽׁת־לִי Gn 4 (not šŏth-li); hence also with כֹּֽל־ ψ 138 and אֵֽת־ Jb 41 (for כָּל־ and אֶת־; cf. also מֵאֵֽת־ Jo 15, &c.). (γ) With Ṣere, which has become toneless through retraction of the tone, in order to prevent its being pronounced as S^egôl^{[critic 4]}, e.g. אֹ֫הֵֽב דָּ֑עַת Jb 12 (not ʾohĕbh). (δ) With all vowels before composite Š^ewâ, e.g. יַֽעֲמֹד, צֹֽעֲקִים, &c. (except when the following consonant is strengthened, e.g. יִקְּֽבֶ֫נּוּ Jo 62, because the strengthening by Dageš excludes the retarding of the vowel by Mèthĕg); so in the cases discussed in § 28 c, where a short vowel has taken the place of a Ḥaṭeph, as יַֽעַמְדוּ, &c. (ε) In the preformative syllable of all forms of הָיָה to be, and חָיָה to live, when Š^ewâ quiescens stands under the ה or ח, e.g. יִֽהְיֶה, תִּֽחְיֶה (yih-yè, tiḥ-yè), &c., cf. § 63 q. (ζ) With the Qameṣ of the plural forms of בַּ֫יִת house (thus בָּֽתִּ֫ים bâttím, cf. § 96 under בַּיִת), and with אָֽנָּ֫ה^[37] prithee! to guard against the pronunciation bŏttím, ŏnnā.—Every kind of light Mèthĕg may in certain circumstances be changed into a conjunctive accent, e.g. בָּ֣תִּים 2 Ch 34, &c.

g 2. The grave Mèthĕg (Gaʿyā in the more limited sense) is especially employed in the following cases in order more distinctly to emphasize a short vowel or an initial Š^ewâ: (a) with the Pathaḥ of the article or of the prefixes ב, כ, ל, when followed by (Š^ewâ under a consonant without (Dageš, e.g. הַֽמְסִלָּה, לַֽמְסִלָּה &c., but not before יְ (before which וַ also remains without Mèthĕg, with the exception of וַֽיְהִי and וַֽיְחִי when they are followed by Maqqēph, or accented with Pašṭā), nor before the tone-syllable of a word, and neither before nor after the common Mèthĕg; likewise not in words which are connected by a conjunctive accent with the following word; (b) with the interrogative הַ with Pathaḥ (except when it precedes יְ, Dageš forte or the tone-syllable of the word), e.g. הַֽאֵלֵךְ. When a Š^ewâ follows the הַ and after the Š^ewâ there is an untoned syllable, Baer places the Mèthĕg to the right of the Pathaḥ , e.g. הֽ͏ַבְרָכָה^{[critic 5]} Gn 27 (but ed. Mant. and Ginsb. הַֽב׳); (c) with the Pathaḥ or S^egôl^{[critic 6]} of the article before a guttural (which cannot take Dageš), e.g. הַֽחַיִּים, הֶֽהָרִים.—The Š^ewâ-Gaʿyā (־ְֽ) is especially important in the accentuation of the תא״ם, for purposes of musical recitation; it stands chiefly in words whose principal tone is marked by a disjunctive without a preceding conjunctive, e.g. וְֽהָיָ֗ה ψ 1.

h 3. The euphonic Gaʿyā, to ensure the distinct pronunciation of those consonants which in consequence of the loss of the tone, or because they close a syllable, might easily be neglected, e.g. וַיִּשָּ֫בַֽע לוֹ Gn 24; פַּדֶּ֫נָֽה אֲרָם (here to avoid a hiatus) 28, or in such cases as רֽוּחַֽ־אֵל Jb 33, &c.; תַּֽדְשֵׁא Gn 1.

i Mèthĕg (especially in the cases mentioned in 1, b, a) is a guide to correct pronunciation, since it distinguishes ā from ŏ (except in the case noted in § 9 v, b) and î from ĭ; e.g. אָֽכְלָ֫ה ʾā-kh^elā (she has eaten), but אָכְלָ֫ה ʾŏkhlā (food), since the ־ָ stands here in a toneless closed syllable, and must therefore be a short vowel; thus also יִֽרְא֫וּ yî-r^eʾû (they fear), but יִרְא֫וּ yirʾû (they see), יִֽשְׁנ֫וּ (they sleep), but יִשְׁנ֫וּ (they repeat). The Jewish grammarians, however, do not consider the syllables lengthened by Mèthĕg as open. They regard the Š^ewâ as quiescent in cases like אָֽכְלָה and belonging to the preceding vowel; cf. Baer, Thorat ʾEmeth, p. 9, and in Merx's Archiv, i. p. 60, Rem. I, and especially Dikduke ha-ṭ^eamim, p. 13.

§17. Of the Q^erê and K^ethîbh. Masora marginalis and finalis.

On Q^erê and K^ethîbh see Ginsburg, Intr., p. 183 ff.

a 1. The margin of Biblical MSS. and editions exhibits variants of an early date (§ 3 c), called קְרֵי^[38] to be read, since, according to

the opinion of the Jewish critics, they are to be preferred to the כְּתִיב, i.e. what is written in the text, and are actually to be read instead of it.

On this account the vowels of the marginal reading (the Q^erê) are placed under the consonants of the text, and in order to understand both readings properly, the vowels in the text must be applied to the marginal reading, while for the reading of the text (the K^ethîbh) its own vowels are to be used. Thus in Jer 42 אֲנַוְּ occurs in the text, in the margin אנחנו קרי. Read אֲנוּ we (or according to Jewish tradition אָנוּ) in the text, in the margin אֲנַ֫חְנוּ. A small circle or asterisk in the text always refers to the marginal reading.

b 2. Words or consonants which are to be passed over in reading, and are therefore left unpointed, are called כְּתִיב וְלֹא קְרֵי (scriptum et non legendum), e.g. את Jer 38, אם 39, ידרך 51. Conversely, words not contained in the text, but required by the Masora (as indicated by the insertion of their vowels), are called קְרֵי וְלֹא כְּתִיב, e.g. 2 S 8, Jer 31. See further Strack, Prolegomena Critica, p. 85; Dikduke ha-ṭ^eamim, §§ 62, 64; Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen, p. 49 ff.

c 3. In the case of some very common words, which are always to be read otherwise than according to the K^ethîbh, it has not been considered necessary to place the Q^erê in the margin, but its vowels are simply attached to the word in the text. This Q^erê perpetuum occurs in the Pentateuch in הִוא (Q^erê הִיא) wherever הוא stands for the feminine (§ 32 l), and in נַֽעֲרָ (K^ethîbh נער, Q^erê נַֽעֲרָה) always, except in Dt 22 (but the Sam. text always has היא, נערה). The ordinary explanation of this supposed archaism, on the analogy of Greek ὁ παῖς and ἡ παῖς, our child, is inadequate, since there is no trace elsewhere of this epicene use; נער for נערה is rather a survival of a system of orthography in which a final vowel was written defectively, as in קָטַלְתָּ; cf. § 2 n.—Other instances are: יִשָּׂשכָר (Q. יִשָּׂכָר) Gn 30 &c., see the Lexicon, and Baer and Delitzsch, Genesis, p. 84, and below, note to § 47 b; יְרֽוּשָׁלַ͏ִם (Q. יְרֽוּשָׁלַ֫יִם), properly יְרֽוּשָׁלֵם; יְהֹוָה (Q. אֲדֹנָי the Lord), or (after אֲדֹנָי) יֱהֹוִה; (Q. אֱלֹהִים) properly יַהְוֶה Yahwè (cf. § 102 m, and § 135 q, note); on שְׁנֵים, שְׁתֵּים for שְׁנֵי, שְׁתֵּי, see § 97 d, end.

d 4. The masoretic apparatus accompanying the biblical text is divided into (a) Masora marginalis, consisting of (α) Masora (marginalis) magna on the upper and lower margins of MSS.; (β) Masora (marginalis) parva between and on the right and left of the columns; (b) Massora finalis at the end of the several books, counting Samuel, Kings, Minor Prophets, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, each as one book. On all three varieties see especially Ginsburg, Introd., p. 423 ff., and the appendices containing (p. 983 ff.) the masoretic treatise from the St. Petersburg MS. of A.D. 1009, and (p. 1000 ff.) specimens of the Masora parva and magna on two chapters.

e In nearly all printed editions only the Masora finalis is found, indicating the number of verses, the middle point of the book, &c., and a scanty selection from the Masora parva. The following alphabetical list of technical expressions (some of them Aramaic) and abbreviations, may suffice with the help of the lexicon to elucidate the subject. Further details will be found in the appendix to Teile’s edition of the Hebrew O.T., p. 1222 ff.

אוֹת letter. אֶלָּא nisi, except. אֶמְצַע middle. אס״ף=אַתְנַח סוֹף פָּסוּק in the formula בְּלֹא אס״ף without ˒Athnaḥ or Soph-pasuq i.e. although no ˒Athnaḥ or Soph-pasuq is written.

בְּ with, before names of vowels or accents, as קָ֫מֶץ בְּזָקֵף Qameṣ with Zaqeph used instead of Pathaḥ (§ 29 i).–ב׳ as a numeral=two, as in ב׳ טְעָמִים two accents. במקצת, see מִקְצָת. בנ״א = בְּנוּסְחָא אַֽחֲרֵינָא (Aramaic) in another copy; pl. בְּנוּסְחָן אַֽחֲרֵינָן.בס״א=בִּסְפָרִים אֲחֵרִים in other books. בָּתַר (Aram.) after.

דָּגּוּשׁ fem. דְּגוּשָׁה marked with Dageš (or Mappiq). דַּף leaf, page.

זְעֵיר fem. זְעֵירָא (Aram.) small.

חוֹל profane, not sacred, e.g. אֲדֹנַי Gn 19 because not referring to God. חוּץ except. חָסֵר written defectively, also wanting as ח׳ א׳ ˒aleph is omitted.

טַ֫עַם accent (see ב); טָעַם in Hiphil to chant an accent.

יַתִּיר superfluous.

כַּאן here. כְּלָל (Aram.) total, as adv. in general.

ל׳=לֵית (Aram., from לָא אִית non est)=the form is not found elsewhere.

מְדוּיָּק accurately corrected. מָלֵא full i.e. written plene. מִלְּמַ֫טָּה below=מִלְּרַע (§ 15 c). מִלְמַ֫עְלָה=מִלְעֵיל (§ 15 c). מְנוּזָּרוֹת separated, the name of the strangely formed Nûns before ψ 107 ff. (§ 5 n). מִקְרָא that which is read, the name for all the O.T. scriptures. מִקְצָת part.

נָח fem. נָחָה quiescent, i.e. not sounded. נֶעְלָם concealed, i.e. only retained orthographically. נִקּוּד a point. נָקוּד pointed.

ס״א see בְּ. סִימָן σημεῖον, sign, esp. a mnemonic word or, frequently, sentence. סך׳ = סְכוּם total. ס״ף = סוֹף פָּסוּק (§ 15 f).

עַמּוּד column of a page.

פָּסוּק a masoretic verse. פִּסְקָא a space, esp. in the phrase פ׳ בְאֶמְצַע פָּסוּק a space within a verse, e.g. Gn 35; cf. H. Grätz, Monatschrift für Gesch. u. Wiss. des Judentums, 1878, p. 481 ff., and H. Strack, ibid. 1879, p. 26 ff.

ק׳=קְרֵי, see above, c. קודם properly קֳדָם before. קָמוּץ fem. קְמוּצָה pointed with Qameṣ. קוֹרֵא reader of the sacred text.

רַבְּתָא, רַבְּתָה, רַבָּתִי (Aram., all fem. sing.) large.

תֵּיבָה word (consisting of more than one letter). תְּלוּיָה suspensa (§ 5 n, 3). תְּרֵי (Aram.) two.

CHAPTER II

PECULIARITIES AND CHANGES OF LETTERS: THE SYLLABLE AND THE TONE

§18.

The changes which take place in the forms of the various parts of speech, depend partly on the peculiar nature of certain classes of letters and the manner in which they affect the formation of syllables, partly on certain laws of the language in regard to syllables and the tone.

§19. Changes of Consonants.

a The changes which take place among consonants, owing to the formation of words, inflexion, euphony, or to influences connected with the progress of the language, are commutation, assimilation, rejection, addition, transposition, softening.

1. Commutation^[39] may take place between consonants which are either homorganic or homogeneous (cf. § 6 q), e.g. עָלַץ, עָלַס, עָלַז to exult, לָאָה, לָהָה, Aram. לְעָא to be weary, לָחַץ and נָחַץ to press, סָגַר and סָכַר to close, מָלַט and פָּלַט to escape. In process of time, and partly under the influence of Aramaic, the harder and rougher sounds especially were changed into the softer, e.g. צָחַק into שָׂחַק to laugh, גָּעַל into גָּאַל to reject, and the sibilants into the corresponding mutes: ז into ד, שׁ into ת, צ into ט. In many cases these mutes may be regarded as a return to an earlier stage of the pronunciation.

The interchange of consonants, however, belongs rather to the lexicographical treatment of stems^[40] than to grammatical inflexion. To the latter belong the interchange (a) of ת and ט in Hithpaʿēl (§ 54 b); (b) of ו and י in verbs primae Yôd (§ 69), יָלַד for וָלַד, &c.

b 2. Assimilation usually takes place when one consonant which closes a syllable passes over into another beginning the next syllable, and forms with it a strengthened letter, as illustris for inlustris, affero for adfero, συλλαμβάνω for συνλαμβάνω. In Hebrew this occurs,

c (a) most frequently with נ‍, e.g. מִשָּׁם (for min-šām) from there, מִזֶּה (for min-zè) from this, יִתֵּן (for yintēn) he gives. נ‍ is not assimilated after the prefix לְ, e.g. לִנְגֹּף, nor as a rule before gutturals (except sometimes before ח), nor when it is the third consonant of the stem, e.g. שָׁכַ֫נְתָּ (cf. however נָתַ֫תָּ for nāthántā) except when another Nun follows, cf. § 44 o; nor in some isolated cases, as Dt 33, Is 29, 58, all in the principal pause; on הִנְדֹּף and תִּנְדֹּף ψ 68, see § 51 k, and § 66 f.

d (b) Less frequently and only in special cases with ל, ת, ד, e.g. יִקָּח (for yilqaḥ) he takes; מִדַּבֵּר for mithdabbēr; יִטַּמָּא for yithṭammā; תִּכּוֹנֵן for tithkônēn; תִּנַּשֵּׂא for תִּתְנַשֵּׂא; אַחַ֫ת for ʾaḥadt; but in 1 S 4 for לָלַת read probably לָלֶ֫דֶת.

e (c) In isolated cases with ה, ו, י, e.g. אָֽנָּא prithee! if from אָהּ נָא; ו and י mostly before sibilants in the verbal forms enumerated in § 71.

f In all these cases, instead of the assimilated letter, a Dageš forte appears in the following consonant. Dageš, however, is omitted when the strengthened consonant would stand at the end of a word, since the strengthening would then be less audible (§ 20 l), e.g. אַף nose (from ʾanp), תֵּת to give (from tint).

The cases are less frequent where a weak letter is lost in pronunciation,^[41] and in place of it the preceding stronger sound is sharpened, i.e. takes Dageš, e.g. קְטָלַ֫תּוּ from קְטָלַ֫תְהוּ (§ 59 g). אֶסַּק for אֶסְלַק (§ 66 e) is an Aramaism.

g 3. Complete rejection takes place only in the case of weaker consonants, especially the sonants נ and ל, the gutturals א and ה, and the two half vowels ו and י. Such rejection takes place,

h (a) at the beginning of a word (aphaeresis), when these weak consonants (א, י, ל, נ‍) are not supported by a full vowel, but have only Š^ewâ, e.g. נַ֫חְנוּ we, also אֲנַ֫חְנוּ; דַּע for וְדַע; קַח for לְקַח; גַּשׁ for נְגַשׁ, הִי for נְהִי Ez 2.

i Aphaeresis of a weak consonant with a full vowel is supposed to occur in רַד Ju 19 for יָרַד; in תַּ֫תָּה 2 S 22 for נָתַ֫תָּה; in שׁוֹב for יָשׁוֹב Je 42; on קָח Ez 17 for לָקַח, and on קָחָם Ho 11 for לְקָחָם, see § 66 g, end. In reality, however, all these forms are to be regarded merely as old textual errors.

k (b) In the middle of a word (syncope), when Š^ewâ precedes the weak consonant^[42]; thus in the case of א (see further § 23 b–f, and § 68 b–k), e.g. in מוּם for מְאוּם. As a rule in such cases, however, the א is orthographically retained, e.g. לִקְרַאת for לְקִרְאַת. Syncope occurs frequently in the case of ה, e.g. לַמֶּ֫לֶךְ for לְהַמֶּ֫לֶךְ (§ 23 k and § 35 n), יַקְטִיל for יְהַקְטִיל (§ 53 a).

Syncope of א with Š^ewâ occurs in such cases as בַּֽאדֹנָי for בַּֽאֲדֹנָי (cf. § 102 m); וַאעְשִׁר Zc 11.^[43] On the cases in which א is wholly omitted after the article, see § 35 d.

Finally, the elision of ו and י in verbs ל״ה (§ 75 h) is an instance of syncope.—On the syncope of ה between two vowels, see § 23 k.

l (c) At the end of a word (apocope), e.g. גִּלֹה pr. name of a city (cf. גִּֽילֹנִי Gilonite); וַיַּרְא, where א though really rejected is orthographically retained, &c. On the apocope of ו and י in verbs ל״ה, see § 24 g, and § 75 a.

Bolder changes (especially by violent apocope), took place in earlier periods of the language, notably the weakening of the feminine ending ־ַת ăth to ־ָה ā, see § 44 a, and § 80 f.

m 4. To avoid harshness in pronunciation a helping sound, Aleph prosthetic^[44] with its vowel, is prefixed to some words, e.g. אֶזְרוֹעַ and זְרוֹעַ arm (cf. χθές, ἐχθές; spiritus, French esprit).—A prosthetic ע occurs probably in עַקְרָב scorpion; cf. Arab. ʿuṣfûr bird (stem ṣafara).

n 5. Transposition^[45] occurs only seldom in the grammar, e.g. הִשְׁתַּמֵּר for הִתְשַׁמֵּר (§ 54 b) for the sake of euphony; it is more frequent in the lexicon (כֶּ֫בֶשׂ and כֶּ֫שֶׂב lamb, שִׂמְלָה and שַׂלְמָה garment), but is mostly confined to sibilants and sonants.

o 6. Softening occurs e.g. in כּוֹכָב star, from kaukabh=kawkabh for kabhkabh (cf. Syriac raurab=rabrab); טֽוֹטָפוֹת phylacteries for ṭaphṭāphôth; according to the common opinion, also in אִישׁ man from ʾinš, cf. however § 96.

§20. The Strengthening (Sharpening) of Consonants.

a 1. The strengthening of a consonant, indicated by Dageš forte, is necessary and essential (Dageš necessarium)

(a) when the same consonant would be written twice in succession without an intermediate vowel or Š^ewâ mobile; thus we have נָתַ֫נּוּ for נָתַ֫נְנוּ nāthăn-nû and שַׁ֫תִּי for שַׁ֫תְתִּי.

(b) in cases of assimilation (§ 19 b–f), e.g. יִתֵּן for yintēn.

In both these cases the Dageš is called compensativum.

(c) When it is characteristic of a grammatical form, e.g. לָמַד he has learned, לִמַּד he has taught (Dageš characteristicum). In a wider sense this includes the cases in which a consonant is sharpened by Dageš forte, to preserve a preceding short vowel (which in an open syllable would have to be lengthened by § 26 e), e.g. גְּמַלִּים camels for g^emālîm; cf. § 93 ee and kk, § 93 pp.

b This coalescing of two consonants as indicated above does not take place when the first has a vowel or Š^ewâ mobile. In the latter case, according to the correct Masora, a compound Š^ewâ should be used, preceded by Methĕg, e.g. הֽוֹלֲלִים, קִֽלֲלַת, &c. (cf. §§ 10 g, 16 f). This pointing is not used before the suffix ךָ, e.g. תְּבָֽרֶכְךָ֫ Gn 27, but the first כ‍ has a vocal Š^ewâ, otherwise the second כ‍ would have Dageš lene. Also when the former of the two consonants has been already strengthened by Dageš forte, it can only have a vocal Š^ewâ, and any further contraction is therefore impossible. This applies also to cases where Dageš forte has been omitted (see below, m), e.g. הַֽלֲלוּ properly הַלְּלוּ=hal-l^elû. The form חַֽנְנֵ֫נִי ψ 9 (not חָנְנֵ֫נִי) might be explained as imperat. Piʿēl=חַנְּנֵ֫נִי; if it were imperat. Qal the non-contraction of the monosyllabic root would be as strange as it is in שָׁדְדוּ Jer 49, and in the imperf. יְשָׁדְדֵם Jer 5.

c 2. A consonant is sometimes strengthened merely for the sake of euphony (Dageš euphonicum), and the strengthening is then not so essential. This occurs^[46]—

(a) when two words are closely united in pronunciation by Dageš forte conjunctivum: (1) in the first letter of a monosyllable or of a word having the tone (or occasionally the counter-tone) on the first syllable,^[47] when closely connected with the preceding word, if that word ends in a tone-bearing Qameṣ (־ָה) with Š^ewâ mobile preceding, or a tone-bearing ־ֶה, —called דְּחִיק (i.e. compressed) by the Jewish grammarians.

The term monosyllable here and in f (by § 28 e) includes Segholates like כֶּ֫סֶף, שֹׁ֫חַד, &c., as well as forms like פְּרִי, שְׁאֹל, שְׁמוֹ, and even כְּנַ֫עַן. Some limit the use of the D^eḥîq to the closest connexion of a monosyllable with a following B^egadk^ephath. However, it also applies to cases like לְכָה־נָּא Nu 22; לֻֽקֳחָה־זֹּאֹת Gn 2; יְצַוֶּה־לָּךְ ψ 91; and even with Rêš, מַֽעֲנֶה־רַּךְ Pr 15; וּמִֽשְׁנֶה־כֶּ֫סֶף Gn 43. In all these examples the tone, were it not for the Maqqēph, would be on the ultima of the first word.

d Rem. 1. When זֶה this has Maqqēph after it, a Dageš forte conj. always follows, even if the next word is neither a monosyllable nor has the tone on the initial syllable; thus not only in וְזֶה־שְּׁמוֹ Jer 23, but also in וְזֶה־פִּרְיָהּ Nu 13, 1 Ch 22. In הִנֶּה֣ נָּאֽ־ Gn 19 (where Maqqēph is represented by a conjunctive accent, § 9 u, 1 c, and § 16 b), the S^eghôl coincides with the secondary tone-syllable. On the origin of Dag. f. conj. after מַה־ (for מָה) what?, see § 37 b, c.

e 2. Such cases as גָאֹ֣ה גָּאָ֫ה Ex 15, the 2nd כָּמֹ֖כָה in ver. , גָּאָ֑לְתָּ ver. , כָּאָ֑בֶן ver. , do not belong here. In these the Dageš can only be intended for Dag. lene, see § 21 d.

f (2) In the first letter of a monosyllable, or of a word with the tone on the first syllable after a closely connected milʿêl ending in ־ָה or ־ֶה. Such a milʿêl is called by the Jewish grammarians אָתֵי מֵרֽ͏ַחִיק (Aram.=Heb. אֹתֶה מֵֽרָחוֹק) veniens e longinquo (in respect of the tone). The attraction of the following tone-syllable by Dageš forte conj. is here also due to the exigencies of rhythm, e.g. שָׁבִ֫יתָ שֶּׁ֫בִי ψ 68; הוֹשִׁ֫יעָה נָּא ψ 118 (so ed. Mant., but Ginsburg and Kittel הֽוֹשִׁיעָ֫ה נָּא); הִרְחִ֫יבָה שְּׁאוֹל Is 5; אַ֫רְצָה כְּנַ֫עַן Gn 11. The Milʿêl may, however, also be due to a subsequent retraction of the tone (nāsôg ʾaḥôr, § 29 e), as in ע֫שֶֹׁה פְּרִי Gn 1.—The prefixes בְ, כְ, לְ and וְ alone do not take a Dageš in this case, except in לְךָ, always, and לְּלַיְלָה ψ 19. Such forms as הִשָּׁ֫בְעָה לִּי Gn 21, מָ֣לְאָה שֹּֽׁחַד ψ 26, רָ֣חֲקָה מֶּֽנִּי Jb 21, and even נַ֣עַמְדָה יָּ֑חַד Is 50 (i.e. the cases where the tone is thrown back from the ultima on to the syllable which otherwise would have Metheg), are likewise regarded as milʿêl. On the other hand, e.g. חָ֣רָה לָךְ Gn 4, not לָּךְ since the first ā of חָרָה could not have Metheg. When words are closely united by Maqqēph the same rules apply as above, except that in the first word Metheg, in the secondary tone, takes the place of the accent, cf. עֽשֶֹׁה־פְּרִי Gn 1; הַגִּֽידָה־נָּא Gn 32, &c. Finally, the Dageš is used when the attracted word does not begin with the principal tone, but with a syllable having Metheg, הֵ֣מָּה יִּֽירְשׁ֫וּ ψ 37; אֵ֣לֶּה יַּֽעֲקֹ֫ב Is 44; עָשִׂ֫יתָ קְּעָֽרֹתָיו Ex 25, provided that the second word does not begin with a B^egadk^ephath letter (hence e.g. אֵ֣לֶּה תֽוֹלְדוֹת Gn 2).

g Rem. Such cases as קָּנֶ֨ךָ Dt 32, and כָּשִׂ֫יתָ 32, and נָּעוֹת (so Baer, but not ed. Mant., &c.) 1 S 1 are therefore anomalous; also, because beginning with a B^egadk^ephath, בָּֽאֵלִם Ex 15 (cf. however above, e); תֵּֽל־ Jos 8; בִּֽזְרוֹעַ ψ 77; כֶּן־הִיא Jb 5.—It is doubtful whether we should include here those cases in which Dageš forte occurs after a word ending in a toneless û, such as ק֫וּמוּ צְּאוּ Gn 19, Ex 12; Ex 12 (שְּׂאֹר), Dt 2; also לֹּא Gn 19, 1 S 8; לּוֹ Ju 18, Est 6 (where P. Haupt regards the Dageš as due to the enclitic character of the לו); מְּעָט Ho 8; נֻּ֫דוּ Jer 49; רְּדוּ 1 S 15. When we explained the Dageš in these examples not as conjunctive, but orthophonic (see above, § 13 c, and Delitzsch, Psalmen, 4th ed. on ψ 94 a), we especially had in view those cases in which the consonant with Dageš has a Š^ewâ. The extension of the use of Dageš to consonants with a strong vowel, seems, however, to indicate that these are cases of the אָתֵי מֵֽרַחִיק, which was required by some Masoretes but not consistently inserted. On the other hand, the Dageš forte in י after a preceding î (ψ 118, 18), and even after û (ψ 94), is due to an attempt to preserve its consonantal power; see König, Lehrgeb., p. 54 b.

h (b) When a consonant with Š^ewâ is strengthened by Dageš forte dirĭmens to make the Š^ewâ more audible. In almost all cases the strengthening or sharpening can be easily explained from the character of the particular consonant, which is almost always a sonant, sibilant, or the emphatic Qôph; cf. עִנְּבֵי Lv 25, Dt 32 (for עִנְבֵי); כַּנְּלֽתְךָ Is 33 (where, however, כְּכַלּֽוֹתְךָ is to be read); cf. Na 3, Jb 9, 17, Jo 1 (with מ‍); Is 57 (with ל); Ju 20,^[48] 1 S 1 (with ר); Gn 49, 17 (and so always in עִקְּבֵי Ju 5, Ct 1 and עִקְּבוֹת ψ 77, 89); Ex 15, Dt 23, Ju 20, 1 S 28 (ק)^[49]; Ex 2, Is 58, Am 5, ψ 141, Pr 4 (צ‍); Pr 27 (שׂ); Is 5, ψ 37, Jer 51, Neh 4 (שׁ). Also, with כ‍ Ho 3; with ב Is 9, Jer 4; with ת 1 S 10. In many instances of this kind the influence of the following consonant is also observable.

i (c) When a vowel is to be made specially emphatic, generally in the principal pause, by a Dageš forte affectuosum in the following consonant. Thus in a following sonant, Ju 5 (חָדִ֑לּוּ), Jb 29 (וְיִחֵ֑לּוּ), 22:12 (רָֽמּוּ); Ez 27 (in נ‍); in ת Is 33, 41, Jer 51, perhaps also Jb 21 (יֵחַֽתּוּ).

k (d) When the sonants ל, מ‍, נ‍ are strengthened by Dageš fortz firmativum in the pronouns הֵ֫מָּה, הֵ֫נָּה, אֵ֫לֶּה, and in לָ֫מָּה why? cf. also בַּמֶּה, בַּמָּה whereby? כַּמָּה how much? (§ 102 k, l), to give greater firmness to the preceding tone-vowel.

l 3. Omission of the strengthening, or at least the loss of the Dageš forte occurs,

(a) almost always at the end of a word, since here a strengthened consonant cannot easily be sounded.^[50] In such cases the preceding vowel is frequently lengthened (§ 27 d), e.g. רֹב multitude, from רבב; עַם people, with a distinctive accent or after the article, עָם, from עמם; but e.g. גַּן garden, בַּת daughter, with the final consonant virtually sharpened. On the exceptions אַתְּ thou (fem.) and נָתַ֫תְּ thou (fem.) hast given Ez 16, see § 10 k.

m (b) Very frequently in certain consonants with Š^ewâ mobile, since the absence of a strong vowel causes the strengthening to be less noticeable. This occurs principally in the case of ו and י (on יְ and יֵּ after the article, see § 35 b; on יְּ after מַה־, § 37 b); and in the sonants מ‍,^[51] נ‍ and ל; also in the sibilants, especially when a guttural follows (but note Is 62, מְאַסְפָיו, as ed. Mant. and Ginsb. correctly read, while Baer has מְאָֽסְ׳ with compensatory lengthening, and others even מְאָסְ׳; מִשְׁמַנֵּי Gn 27; מִשְׁלשׁ Gn 38 for מִשְּׁ׳, הַֽשְׁלַבִּים 1 K 7; אֶֽשְֽׁקָה־ 1 K 19 from נָשַׁק, הַֽשְׁפַתַּ֫יִם Ez 40 and לַֽשְׁפַנִּים ψ 104; מִשְׁתֵּים Jon 4, הַֽצְפַרְדְּעִים Ex 8 &c.);—and finally in the emphatic ק.^[52]

Of the B^egadk^ephath letters, ב occurs without Dageš in מִבְצִיר Ju 8; ג in מִגְבֽוּרָתָם Ez 32; ד in נִדְחֵי Is 11 56:8, ψ 147 (not in Jer 49), supposing that it is the Participle Niphʿal of נָדַח; lastly, ת in תִּתְצוּ Is 22. Examples, עִוְרִים, וַיְהִי (so always the preformative יְ in the imperf. of verbs), מִלְמַ֫עְלָה, לַֽמְנַצֵּחַ, הִנְנִי, הַֽלֲלוּ, מִלְאוּ, כִּסְאִי, יִשְׂאוּ, יִקְחוּ, מַקְלוֹת, מִקְצֵה, &c. In correct MSS. the omission of the Dageš is indicated by the Rāphè stroke (§ 14) over the consonant. However, in these cases, we must assume at least a virtual strengthening of the consonant (Dageš forte implicitum, see § 22 c, end).

(c) In the Gutturals, see § 22 b.

n Rem. 1. Contrary to rule the strengthening is omitted (especially in the later Books), owing to the lengthening of the preceding short vowel, generally Ḥireq (cf. mīle for mille), e.g. יְחִיתַ֑ן he makes them afraid, for יְחִתֵּן Hb 2 (where, however, it is perhaps more correct to suppose, with König, a formation on the analogy of verbs ע״וּ, and moreover to read יְחִיתֶ֫ךָ with the LXX), זִיקוֹת Is 50 for זִקּוֹת.

o 2. Very doubtful are the instances in which compensation for the strengthening is supposed to be made by the insertion of a following נ‍. Thus for מָֽעֻזְנֶ֫יהָ Is 23, read מָֽעֻזֶּ֫יהָ (or מְעוֹנֶ֫יהָ); and for תָ֫מְנוּ La 3, read תַּ֫מּוּ. In Nu 23 קָבְנוֹ is not an instance of compensation (see § 67 o, end).

§21. The Aspiration of the Tenues.^[53]

a The harder sound of the six B^egadk^ephath letters, indicated by a Dageš lene, is to be regarded, according to the general analogy of languages, as their older and original pronunciation, from which the softer sound was weakened (§ 6 n and § 13). The original hard sound is maintained when the letter is initial, and after a consonant, but when it immediately follows a vowel or Š^ewā mobile it is softened and aspirated by their influence, e.g. פָּרַץ pāraṣ, יִפְרֹץ yiphrōṣ, כֹּל kōl, לְכֹל l^ekhōl. Hence the B^egadk^ephath take Dageš lene

b (1) at the beginning of words: (a) without exception when the preceding word ends with a vowelless consonant, e.g. עַל־כֵּן ʾal-kēn (therefore), עֵץ פְּרִי ʿēṣ p^erî (fruit-tree); (b) at the beginning of a section, e.g. בְּרֵאשִׁית Gn 1, or at the beginning of a sentence, or even of a minor division of a sentence after a distinctive accent (§ 15 d), although the preceding word may end with a vowel. The distinctive accent in such a case prevents the vowel from influencing the following tenuis, e.g. וַיְהִ֕י כַּֽאֲשֶׁר and it was so, that when, Ju 11 (but וַֽיְהִי־כֵן Gn 1).

c Rem. 1. The vowel letters ה, י, ו, א, as such, naturally do not close a syllable. In close connexion they are therefore followed by the aspirated B^egadk^ephath, e.g. וּמָ֣צָא בָהּ, &c. On the other hand, syllables are closed by the consonantal ו and י (except קַו־תֹ֫הוּ Is 34; שָׁלֵו֣בָֿהּ Ez 23; אֲדֹנָי בָֿם ψ 68), and by הּ with Mappîq; hence e.g. there is Dageš lene in עָלַי֣ פִּיהֶם and always after יְהֹוָה, since the Q^erê perpetuum of this word (§ 17) assumes the reading אֲדֹנָי.

d 2. In a number of cases Dageš lene is inserted, although a vowel precedes in close connexion. This almost always occurs with the prefixes בְּ and כְּ‍ in the combinations בְּב, כְּכ‍, בְּפ‍ (i.e. when a B^egadk^ephath with Š^ewâ precedes the same or a kindred aspirate) and בְּם (see Baer, L. Psalmorum, 1880, p. 92,^[54]

on ψ 23); cf. e.g. 1 S 25, Is 10, ψ 34, Jb 19; כְג is uncertain; בְד, כְד, and בְכ‍ according to David Qimḥi do not take Dageš, nor כְג, כב, and כְפ‍ according to the Dikduke ha-ṭ^eeamim, p. 30. Sometimes the B^egadk^ephath letters, even with a full vowel, take Dageš before aspirant (and even before ח in בַּֽחֲמִשָּׁה 1 K 12); cf. the instances mentioned above, § 20 e (mostly tenues before א). In all these cases the object is to prevent too great an accumulation of aspirates. The LXX, on the other hand, almost always represent the כ‍ and פ‍, even at the beginning of a syllable, by χ and φ; Χερούβ, Χαλδαῖοι, Φαρφάρ, &c.—The forms כַּֽדְכֹד (after וְשַׂמְתִּ֫י) Is 54, and כַּֽלְכֵל (after וְנִלְאֵ֫יתִי) Jer 20 are doubly anomalous.

e (2) In the middle of words after Š^ewâ quiescens, i.e. at the beginning of a syllable immediately after a vowelless consonant,^[55] e.g. יִרְפָּא yirpā (he heals), קְטַלְתֶּם ye have killed; but after Š^ewâ mobile, e.g. רְפָא r^ephā (heal thou), כָּֽבְדָה she was heavy.

f On קָטַלְתְּ, וַיִּשְׁבְּ and similar forms, see § 10 i.

Whether Š^ewâ be vocal and consequently causes the aspiration of a following tenuis, depends upon the origin of the particular form. It is almost always vocal

(a) When it has arisen from the weakening of a strong vowel, e.g. רִדְפוּ pursue ye (not רִדְפּוּ) from רְדֹף; מַלְכֵי (not מַלְכֵּי), because originally mălăkhê, but מַלְכִּי from the ground-form malk.

(b) With the כ‍ of the pronominal suffixes of the 2nd pers. ־ְךָ, ־ְכֶם, ־ְכֶן, since Š^ewâ mobile is characteristic of these forms (see § 58 f; § 91 b).

Rem. Forms like שָׁלַ֫חַתְּ thou (fem.) hast sent, in which we should expect an aspirated ת after the vowel, cf. וַיִּ֫חַדְּ Ex 18, have arisen from שָׁלַחְתְּ, יִחְדְּ, &c.; Pathaḥ being here simply a helping vowel has no influence on the tenuis; cf. § 28 e.

§22. Peculiarities of the Gutturals.

a The four gutturals ח, ה, ע, א, in consequence of their peculiar pronunciation, have special characteristics, but א, as the weakest of these sounds, and sometimes also ע (which elsewhere as one of the harder gutturals is the opposite of א), differ in several respects from the stronger ה and ח.

b 1. They do not admit of Dageš forte, since, in consequence of a gradual weakening of the pronunciation (see below, note 2), the strengthening of the gutturals was hardly audible to the Masoretes. But a distinction must be drawn between (a) the complete omission of the strengthening, and (b) the mere echo of it, commonly called half doubling, but better, virtual strengthening.

c In the former case, the short vowel before the guttural would stand in an open syllable, and must accordingly be lengthened or modified.^[56]

1. After the example of the Jewish grammarians the expression, ‘the vowel letter rests (quiesces) in the vowel-sign,’ has become customary. On the other hand, the vowel letters are also called by the grammarians, matres lectionres or supports (fulcra).
2. Cf. T. C. Foote, The diphthong ai in Hebrew (Johns Hopkins Univ. Circulars, June, 1903, p. 70 ff.).
3. In MSS. ו and י, in such combinations as גֵּוּ, חַיּ, are even marked with Mappîq (§ 14 a).
4. Of a different kind are the cases in which א has lost its consonantal sound by coalescing with a preceding a, § 23 a–d.
5. In Arabic this ă is always retained in an open syllable.
6. At least according to the Masoretic orthography; cf. Wellhausen, Text der Bb. Sam., p. 18, Rem.
7. Jerome (cf. Siegfried, ZAW. 1884, p. 77) in these cases often gives ă for ĭ.
8. Cf. the remarks of I. Guidi, ‘La pronuncia del ṣērē,’ in the Verhandl. des Hamburger Orient.-Kongr. of 1902, Leiden, 1904, p. 208 ff., on Italian e for Latin i, as in fede = fĭdem, pece = pĭcem.
9. Cf. Delitzsch, Physiologie u. Musik, Lpz. 1868, p. 15 f.
10. Cf. above, b, end. On Jerome’s transliteration of o for ā, see ZAW. 1884, p. 75.
11. These statements, in order to be fully understood, must be studied in connexion with the theory of syllables (§ 26) and Metheg (§ 16 c–i).
12. In the Babylonian punctuation (§ 8 g, note) ā and ŏ are carefully distinguished. So also in many MSS with the ordinary punctuation and in Baer’s editions of the text since 1880, in which ־ֳ is used for ŏ as well as for ^ŏ. Cf. Baer-Delitzsch, Liber Jobi, p. 43. But the identity of the two signs is certainly original, and the use of ־ֳ for ŏ is misleading.
13. On שְׁוָא, the older and certainly the only correct form (as in Ben Asher), see Bather, ZDMG. 1895, p. 18, note 3, who compares Šewayya, the name of the Syriac accentual sign of similar form ־֔ (=Hebr. Zaqeph). The form שְׁבָא, customary in Spain since the time of Menaḥem b. Sarûq, is due to a supposed connexion with Aram. שְׁבָת rest, and hence would originally have denoted only Š^ewâ quiescens, like the Arabic sukūn (rest). The derivation from שֵׁבָה, שִׁיבָה (stem יָשַׁב, Levias, American Journ. of Philol., xvi. 28 ff.) seems impossible.
14. The same occurs frequently also in the Greek and Latin transcriptions of Phoenician words, e.g. מְלָכָא Malaga, גְּבוּלִים gubulim (Schröder, Die phöniz. Spr., p. 139 ff.). Cf. the Latin augment in momordi, pupugi, with the Greek in τέτυφα, τετυμμένος, and the old form memordi.
15. See especially Yehuda Ḥayyûǵ, pp. 4 f. and 130 f. in Nutt’s edition (Lond. 1870), corresponding to p. 200 of the edition by Dukes (Stuttg. 1844); Ibn Ezra’s Ṣaḥoth, p. 3; Gesenius, Lehrgebäude der hebr. Sprache, p. 68. The Manuel du lecteur, mentioned above, § 6 b, also contains express rules for the various ways of pronouncing Š^ewâ mobile: so too the Dikduke ha-ṭ^eeamim, ed. by Baer and Strack, Lpz. 1879, p. 12 ff. Cf. also Schreiner, ZAW. vi. 236 ff.
16. See Delitzsch, ‘Bemerkungen über masoretisch treue Darstellung des alttestam. Textes,’ in the Ztschr. f. luth. Theol. u. Kirche, vol. xxiv. 1863, p. 409 ff.
17. On the uncertainty of the MSS. in some cases which come under a, see Minḥat shay (the Masoretic comm. in ed. Mant.) on Gn 12 and Ju 7.
18. Critical annotation: וּֽתֲבֻֿקְשִׁׄי in Eze 26 in Aleppo codex.—A. E. A.
19. Ben-Asher requires ־ֲ for ־ְ (even for Š^ewâ quiescens) generally before a guttural or ר; hence Baer reads in 2 S 15 בִּֽקַרָב־, ψ 18 אֶֽקֲרָא; ψ 49 לִֽשֲׁאוֹל; ψ 65 תִּֽבֲחַר; ψ 68 תִּֽמֲחַץ; Pr 30 תִּֽלֲעַג; Jb 29 אֶֽבֲחַר; cf. Delitzsch, Psalms, 12:7, note.
20. On ־ִיתְ as an ending of the 2nd sing. fem. perf. Qal of verbs ל״ה, see § 75 m.
21. Oort, Theol. Tijdschr. 1902, p. 376, maintains that ‘the Masoretes recognized no distinction between Dageš lene and forte. They used a Dageš where they considered that a letter had the sharp, not the soft or aspirated sound.’ This may be true; but the old-established distinction between the two kinds of Dageš is essential for the right understanding of the grammatical forms.
22. Wāw with Dageš (וּ) cannot in our printed texts be distinguished from a wāw pointed as Šûrĕq (וּ); in the latter case the point should stand higher up. The וּ û is, however, easily to be recognized since it cannot take a vowel before or under it.
23. Stade, Lehrb. der hebr. Gr., Lpz. 1879, pp. 44, 103, rightly insists on the expression strengthened pronunciation instead of the older term doubling, since the consonant in question is only written once. The common expression arises from the fact that in transcription a strengthened consonant can only be indicated by writing it as double.
24. On the attempts of Christian scholars of the sixteenth century to express the Hebrew accents by musical notes, cf. Ortenberg, ZDMG.. 1889, p. 534.
25. At the same time it must not be forgotten that the value of the accent as a mark of punctuation is always relative; thus, e.g. ʾAthnâḥ as regards the logical structure of the sentence may at one time indicate a very important break (as in Gn 1); at another, one which is almost imperceptible (as in Gn 1).
26. ‘Above’ in this sense means what comes before, ‘below’ is what comes after; cf. Bacher, ZAW.. 1907, p. 285 f.
27. Cf. Delitzsch on Is 40.
28. All the disjunctives occur in Is 39.—The earlier Jewish accentuologists already distinguish between מְלָכִים Reges and מְשָֽׁרְתִים servi. The division of the disjunctive accents into Imperatores, Reges, Duces, Comites, which became common amongst Christian grammarians, originated in the Scrutinium S. S. ex accentibus of Sam. Bohlius, Rostock, 1636, and, as the source of manifold confusion, had better be given up. The order of the accents in respect to their disjunctive power is shown in general by the above classification, following Wickes. In respect to the height of tone (in chanting) 1, 2, 5, 4, 8, which were low and long sustained notes, are to be distinguished from the high notes (7, 3^a, 6, 13, 9), and the highest (3^b, 11, 12, 10); cf. Wickes, ט׳ כ״א p. 12 ff.—The name טְעָמִים (later=accents in general) was originally restricted to the disjunctives, see Kahle, 1. c., p. 169.
29. This stroke is commonly confused with Paseq, which has the same form. But Pâsēq (= restraining, dividing, also incorrectly called P^esîq) is neither an independent accent, nor a constituent part of other accents, but is used as a mark for various purposes; see the Masoretic lists at the end of Baer’s editions, and Wickes, Accents of the Twenty-one Books, p. 120 ff., where Pâsēq is divided into distinctivum, emphaticum, homonymicum, and euphonicum. The conjecture of Olshausen (Lehrb., p. 86 f.), that Pâsēq served also to point out marginal glosses subsequently interpolated into the text, has been further developed by E. von Ortenberg, ‘Die Bedeutung des Paseq für Quellenscheidung in den BB. d. A.T.,’ in Progr. des Domgymn. zu Verden, 1887, and in the article, ‘Paseq u. Legarmeh,’ in ZAW. 1887, p. 301 ff. (but see Wickes, ibid. 1888, p. 149 ff.; also E. König, in the Ztschr. f. kirchl. Wiss. u. kirchl. Leben, 1889, parts 5 and 6; Maas, in Hebraica, v. 121 ff., viii. 89 ff.). Prätorius, ZDMG. 1899, p 683 ff., pointed out that Paseq (which is pre-masoretic and quite distinct from L^egarmēh) besides being a divider (used especially for the sake of greater clearness) also served as a sign of abbreviation. For further treatment of Paseq see H. Grimme, ‘Pasekstudien,’ in the Bibl. Ztschr., i. 337 ff., ii. 28 ff., and Psalmenprobleme, &c., Freiburg (Switzerland), 1902, p. 173, where it is argued that Paseq indicates variants in a difficult sentence; J. Kennedy, The Note-line in the Heb. Scriptures, Edinb. 1903, with an index of all the occurrences of Paseq, p. 117 ff. According to Kennedy the ‘note-line’, of which he distinguishes sixteen different kinds, is intended to draw attention to some peculiarity in the text; it existed long before the Masoretes, and was no longer understood by them. See, however, the reviews of E. König, Theol. stud. u. Krit., 1904, p. 448 ff., G. Beer, TLZ. 1905, no. 3, and esp. A. Klostermann, Theol. Lit.-blatt, 1904, no. 13, with whom Ginsburg agrees (Verhandlungen des Hamb. Or.-kongresses von 1902, Leiden, 1904, p. 210 ff.) in showing that the tradition with regard to the 479 or 480 uses of Paseq is by no means uniform. The purpose of Paseq is clearly recognizable in the five old rules:
    1. as a divider between identical letters at the end and beginning of two words;
    2. between identical or very similar words;
    3. between words which are absolutely contradictory (as God and evil-doer);
    4. between words which are liable to be wrongly connected;
    5. and lastly, between heterogeneous terms, as ‘Eleazar the High Priest, and Joshua’.
    But the assumption of a far-reaching critical importance in Paseq is at least doubtful.—Cf. also the important article by H. Fuchs, ‘Pesiq ein Glossenzeichen,’ in the Vierteljahrsschrift f. Bibelkunde, Aug. 1908, p. 1 ff. and p. 97 ff.
30. If the word in question has the tone on the penultima, Pašṭā is placed over it also, e.g תֹ֨הוּ֨ Gn 1; cf. below, l
31. Wickes requires Geršáyim (גֵּרְשַׁיִם).
32. Wrongly called also Mêr^ekhā m^ehuppākh (Mêr^ekha mahpakhatum), although the accent underneath is in no way connected with Mêr^ekhā; cf. Wickes, l. c., p. 14.
33. Critical annotation: Should be spelled Mèthĕg.—A. E. A.
34. Critical annotation: Should be spelled Sillûq.—A. E. A.
35. Critical annotation: Should be spelled Sillûq.—A. E. A.
36. Cf. as the source of this account of Mèthĕg, the exhaustive treatment by S. Baer, 'Mèthĕg-Setzung nach ihren über lieferten Gesetzen,' in A. Merx's Archiv für die wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A. Test., Heft i, Halle, 1867, p. 56 ff., and Heft ii. 1868, p. 194 ff.; Baer and Strack, Dikduke ha-ṭ^eamim, p. 30 ff.
37. The common form is אָֽנָּ֫א with an accent on both syllables, in which case, according to Qimḥi, the tone is always to be placed on the former. For the above mode of writing and position of the tone cf. Is 38, Jon 1, 4, ψ 116. [Editions often vary in individual passages, as regards the accentuation of the first syllable: but in the 7 occurrences of אנא, and the 6 of אנה, Baer, Ginsburg, and Kittel agree in having an accent on both syllables (as אָ֣נָּ֗א) in Gn 50, Ex 32, ψ 116, and Metheg on the first syllable and an accent on the second syllable (as אָֽנָּ֣ה) in 2 K 20=Is 38, Jon 1, 4, ψ 116, 118, Dn 9, Ne 1, except that in ψ 116 Ginsburg has אָנָּ֥ה.—S. R. D.]
38. On the necessity of the punctuation קְרֵי as passive participle ( = legendum) instead of קְרִי Q^eri, which was formerly common but is properly a past tense (lectum est), see Kautzsch, Gramm. des Bibl.-Aram., p. 81, note.
39. Cf. Barth, Etymologische Forschungen, Lpz. 1893, p. 15 ff. (‘Lautverschiebungen’).
40. See in the Lexicon, the preliminary remarks on the several consonants.
41. Such a suppression of a letter is sometimes inaccurately called ‘backward assimilation’.
42. Syncope of a strong consonant (ע) occurs in בִּי prithee! if this stands for בְּעִי (see Lexicon), also in ונשׁקה Am 8, K^ethîbh for וְנִשְׁקְעָה (cf. וְשָֽׁקְעָה 9), and in בָּלָה Jos 19 for בָּֽעֲלָה (as in 15). Probably, however, ונשׁקה and בלה are only clerical errors, as is undoubtedly כָאֹר Am 8 for כַיְאֹר (9).
43. Frensdorff, Ochla Wʾochla, p. 97 f., gives a list of forty-eight words with quiescent א.
44. This awkward term is at any rate as suitable as the name Alef protheticum proposed by Nestle, Marginalien u. Materialien, Tübingen, 1893, p. 67 ff.
45. Cf. Barth, Etymologische Studien, Lpz. 1893, p. 1 ff.; Königsberger, in Zeitschrift f. wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1894, p. 451 ff.
46. Cf. Baer, ‘De primarum vocabulorum literarum dagessatione,’ in his Liber Proverbiorum, Lpz. 1880. pp. vii–xv; F. Prätorius, ‘Über den Ursprung des Dag. f. conjunctivum,’ in ZAW. 1883, p. 17 ff. (ascribed to an original assimilation of ת or נ‍).
47. לֵאמֹר alone, although having the tone on the ultima, invariably takes the Dageš forte conj. when משֶׁה with a conjunctive accent precedes, Ex 6, Ex 15, &c.
48. The ordinary reading הִרְדִיפֻ֫הוּ, where ד is without Dageš, is only intelligible if the ר has Dageš.
49. Also in ψ 45 read בְּיִקְּרוֹתֶ֫יךָ with Baer and Ginsburg, following Ben Asher, and in Pr 30 לְיִקְּהַת (Ben Naphthali בִּיקְּ׳ and לִיקְּ׳).
50. So in Latin fel (for fell), gen. fellis; mel, mellis; os, ossis. In Middle High German the doubling of consonants never takes place at the end of a word, but only in the middle (as in Old High German), e g. val (Fall), gen. valles; swam (Schwamm, &c., Grimm, Deutsche Gramm., 2nd ed., i. 383.
51. Dageš forte is almost always omitted in מְ‍ when it is the prefix of the participle Piʿel or Puʿal, hence ψ 104 הַֽמְקָרֶה who layeth the beams, but הַמְּקָרֶה the roof Ec 10 (cf. הַמְּלָאכָה the work, &c.).
52. According to some also in ט in תִּטְעִי Is 17; but see Baer on the passage.
53. Cf. Delitzsch, Ztschr. f. luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1878, p. 585 ff.
54. Also L. Proverbiorum, 1880, Praef. p. ix; and Dikduke ha-ṭ^eamim, p. 30 (in German in König’s Lehrgeb., i. p. 62).
55. The exceptions יָקְתְאֵל Jos 15 (see Minḥat shay, on this passage), 2 K 14, and יָקְדְעָם Jos 15 may perhaps be due to the character of the ק.
56. Cf. terra and the French terre, the German Rolle and the French rôle; German drollig and French drôle. The omission of the strengthening shows a deterioration of the language. Arabic still admits of the strengthening of gutturals in all cases.