David,

Who is the Mateh Moshe?

This seems to be a clear souce for a gimmel degusha, a gimmel with a dagesh.

I found a few sources in the Amidah prayer, the Shmoneh-Esray, where Jews beseech G-d to deliver them from exile, and other places in the Jewish prayerbook.

Maybe, geulah has a gimmel with a dagesh, maybe not.

John, can you search your data base if the geulah ever appears in the Tanach?

Israel,

> geulah ever appears in the Tanach?
???

I’ll save John the time. See Leviticus 25: 24, 31, 48.

> To which Rebbe are you referring?

You tell me. You have to know it; Very important work by the Rebbe!!!!

BTW, do you understand the Rebbe, the Hebrew?

Rebbe in Hebrew is an acronym for three Hebrew letters, R -B - Y = Rosh Benei Yisroel - the head of the Jewish people.

.
.
In the Talmud, the person called “Rebbe” was a very great person. He was so great that we didn’t need to say his name.

Among Lubavitcher Chassidim, the Rebbe refers to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, of sacred memory. But in each generation, the Lubavitcher Chassidim referred to their rebbe as the “Rebbe”.

As the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe said about his predecessor and himself for a supporter of Lubavitch who no longer wanted to give money to Lubavitch, claiming that he knew the sixth Rebbe, but did not know this one, “Tell him, we’re all the same person, but just in a different body.”

Which work by the Rebbe do you refer? Yalkut Moshiach U’Geulah?

A “rebbe” in general refers to ones teacher, from the simple cheder teacher, to the esteemed rabbi who lectures in the advanced yeshiva.

> See Leviticus 25: 24, 31, 48

Wow, do you know the Tanach by heart? Are these examples of the word ’geulah’ with a gimmel dagusha?

I don’t have my Tanach here. Can you scan the verses please?

I briefly reviewed David Kimchi’ Hebrew Grammar by William Chomsky. I am studying it more seriously.

My first response to Dr. Chomsky’s thorough presentation of Rabbi Kimchi’s broad knowledge of classical Hebrew Grammar, is that it lacks a comprehensive analysis of its topics, and a systematic presentation.

Who is writing to?

Peers, who appreciate his subject matter and array of examples, do not need a paragraph overview or two and a definition of a rule of the Hebrew Grammar that those examples illustrate.

I am a student of Hebrew Grammar. Not a peer. I seek a short overview of each rule of Hebrew Grammar. I would gain increased knowledge from a comprehensive analysis of its topics, and a systematic presentation.

I hope the other books suggested on this topic are not as limited as this one.

For example, why did I not see a simple statement about the gimmel when it appears first in a Hebrew word, then it has a dagesh, because the Gimmel is a Palatal, and when a Palatal begins a word, it has a dagesh?

This would be a simply stated rule.

Instead, David and I search for different examples in Tanach, or in rabbinical writings, to derive this simple matter.

Israel, you may like Weingreen’s A practical grammar for classical Hebrew, which is well structured and quite clear. Complex topics are followed by a summary, making it easy to check that you have understood the preceding explanations and examples. For example:

‘Dagesh Lene applies to the six letters בגדכפת and, when inserted in them, hardens them by changing the sound from spirant to momentary. Dagesh Lene occurs in these letters at the beginning of a syllable, provided no vowel immediately precedes.’

This still leaves some questions, but these too are clarified. For instance, if the preceding word ends in a vowel, will the gimel etc. at the beginning of the next work take dagesh or not?

Israel,

I don’t understand the nature of the problem ( the book by Chomsky). But the main question is: did you read/study Kimchi? Because of you didn’t study Kimchi how do you know what is wrong or right with Chomsky?

I think that I said that before. Don’t look for How-to; read again the post by Bill about the kamats katan: with every rule there’s a chain reaction!!! You can’t just look for rules. You need & have to study everything: verb pattern groups, the verb system, the noun system, pronouns etc. etc. etc. etc.

That is why I don’t understand: “Instead, David and I search for different examples in Tanach, or in rabbinical writings, to derive this simple matter.”???

The main goal with ’your Rebbe’ was to save me time + words. BTW, the Rebbe is Shneur Zalman of Liadi. And you didn’t answer my question: do you understand the Rebbe, the Hebrew?

What is the name of the siddur (year, publisher)? There’s a problem with this sample; that is why I like to see a scan.

———-

And, of course, Shana Tova!

John and David,

Thank you for your advice and remarks. I think you, John, get the drift of what I complained about. David, you seemed to defend Dr. Chromsky by asserting that there is no simple rule, only chain reactions.

===

Many people believe mistakenly that the two-day High Holiday of Rosh Hashana is in a similar theme as of the other holidays in this season: remorse for past short-comings, and a firm resolve for a better future; blessing for a good and sweet year; a time to get closer to G-d; and happiness for the Torah.

Actually, Rosh Hashana stands apart, as it is not self-centered, and having to do mainly with us. Rather, the focus of Rosh Hashana is only upon G-d’s role as king of the universe and every single living being in it.

In that way, Rosh Hashana is a universal holiday, which affects all humanity - perhaps, more than any other holiday (although many people point to Chanukah for its universal message of religious freedom).

The sealing of ones fate, so to speak, is about three weeks later, on Hoshana Raba. According to Chassidic understanding, based upon the teachings of Jewish mysticism, if one is not satisfied with the outxcome of G-d’s judgement, one still has the opportunity to “turn over the cart” and earn remarkable blessings by dancing excitedly on Simchat Torah, as is the custom of Lubavitchers. We are never satisfied with whatever we get. :)

===

Ktiva vachatima tovs - may you be written and sealed for a good year!

David,

1. According to the rule of Dagesh Lene pertaining to the six letters בגדכפת quoted by John, the word “G’alo”, “[G-d redeemed [the Jewish nation]” preceded by the vowel “u” should not be with a dagesh.

John, you referred to some problems with this rule. What are they?

2. In my JTS English translation of Tanach, I don’t see the word “Geula”, redemption, but similar words. chazar kushia l’ducteh, the question returns. John, is ’Geulah’ ’גאולה’ as spelled, anywhere in Tanach? I don’t think that I ever heard it in a quote.

3. The Rebbe, in Hebrew? I am unsure as to what you refer.

Rabbi Scheur Zalman of Liad, or the Alter Rebbe, the “old Rebbe”, as Lubavitchers refer to him, or the Rav (as he is often called, because he composed a revised version of the Shulchan Orech, the Codes of Jewish Law), or the Baal HaTanya (as he is often called, because he composed a famous systematic work explaining the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov, composed many works in Hebrew. His most famous works are: a) Likutei Amarim/Tanya; b) Shulchan Orech; and c) Torah Ohr and Likutei Torah.

Are you referring to one of these?

If yes, I have studied them repeatedly in Hebrew.

His style is similar to the writings of Maimonides, in that he is both exceedingly clear, yet extremely concise, to the point “each letter he writes is weighed”.

Like Rambam (Maimonides) in Mishnah Torah, Rabbi Scheur Zalman of Liady devotes much discussion and deliberation about the shapes of letters in a Torah scroll. Likewise, he was super attentive to the rules of Hebrew grammar.

Israel, I believe David was asking is you understood what ’the Rebbe’ (Shneur Zalman) has written ’in Hebrew’ as quoted in the image included in David’s first post in this discussion.

Israel: 2. In my JTS English translation of Tanach, I don’t see the word “Geula”, redemption, but similar words. chazar kushia l’ducteh, the question returns. John, is ’Geulah’ ’גאולה’ as spelled, anywhere in Tanach? I don’t think that I ever heard it in a quote.

With the vav? I have not found any instances yet, but I do not have an easily searchable version of the text at the moment (my old Logos installation got corrupted). So far, I have only found — as in the Leviticus passages cited by David above — the form גאלה —, without the vav.

John,

The quotation in Hebrew is attributed to two parties, the Shua”r, and the Mateh Moshe. Also, the style of the comment and its content is unlike those of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liady.

David, what are you referring to?

Like David Kimchi, are all Davids so cryptic?

Curiously, we know that Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liady is a direct descendant from the famed Maharal of Prague, Rabbi Judah Loeb, who traced his lineage to Rashi, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, who in turn traced his lineage to King David.

So, we see Davids (and descendants of David) are short and sweet, and to the point. To some, this is cryptic.

John,

The database you have is with the nikkud and taam. Can’t you search just the letters?

Even if you supported wild card searches, you would have to search five Unicode values, with three or less wild cards after each one, as you don’t know which has a taam and a dagesh.

Is there anyway to search in this way?

In Logos, you would just search the letters?

You would think that in this day and age, searching in this way would be feasible.

> [the dagesh] hardens them by changing the sound from spirant to momentary

A “spirant” sound is soft, smooth, and longer, while a dagesh sound is hard, abrupt, and shorter.

Is this what is meant by “momentary”.

> [the dagesh] hardens them by changing the sound from spirant to momentary

A “spirant” sound is soft, smooth, and longer, while a dagesh sound is hard, abrupt, and shorter.

Is this what is meant by “momentary”. Is this correct?

According the the morphix entry the word is witten גְּאֻלָּה; with a simple grep I got the following instances.

I searched with egrep and wild cards to get something close to גאולה and got nothing.

Israel,

> David, what are you referring to?

Shneur Zalman of Liadi — Siddur Rabbeinu Hazoken

Kehot:
“Compiled by Rabbi Levi Y. Raskin
Mark the 201st anniversary of the publication of the Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi‘s Siddur with this special bicentennial edition. A well researched, definitive and encyclopedic edition that offers citations and explanations of the sources and reasoning, behind Rabbi Schneur Zalman‘s rulings about halacha, prayer phraseology and pronunciation. For clarity, the notes appear beneath the text that they reference. This is a monumental work of useful scholarship befitting a glorious milestone in the history of Chabad-Lubavitch.”

Aside:

Curiously, we know that Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liady is a direct descendant from the famed Maharal of Prague, Rabbi Judah Loeb, who traced his lineage to Rashi, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, who in turn traced his lineage to King David.

I visited Rabbi Loeb’s grave when I was in Prague. It was moving, as always in Jewish cemeteries, so see the stones laid upon the grave.

Israel, as I said, my Logos installation is corrupted, so I don’t have easy access to searching the whole text. I have my letters+marks sequence query data and other older searches, but can’t at the moment conduct word searches. But the information that Michel provides matches what I have been able to find in my various print editions: no vav.

> no vav

I found this “exception” if you want to call it that way

Israel,

> Like David Kimchi, are all Davids so cryptic?

Why Kimchi is so cryptic? Which chapter, section is so cryptic?

Guess what. Now I remember that there’s one word (and only one word) geulah with vav: see Roth 4:7 (al-haGeulah)

Michel,

Thank you for these five examples of the word, “גְּאֻלָּה”, “redemption”, each with a dagesh both in the gimmel and lamed.

This word, “גְּאֻלָּה” is not with a shuruk (with a vov), but with a kubutz under the aleph, and without a vov.

Hence, the correct way to represent “גאולה” with a vov, is to place a dagesh both in the gimmel and the lamed.

.
.
When I originally quoted this term, גאולה, I really wan’t referring to any point in Hebrew grammar, or to its typical Biblical usage. Rather, I was referring to itsusage in modern terms, as the end of גלות, the 2,000 year old exile of the Jewish people, known as the גולה, the diaspora. By inserting an aleph, א, into the word, גולה, between the gimmel and the vov, the results are: גאולה, redemption.

This was in continuation to my quotation from the book, “Letters of Light”, which attributes Divine significance to the meaning of an aleph.

Our discussion was parenthetical.

Why is a vov included in the spelling of “גאולה”, and not without a vov, like the Biblical spelling: “גְּאֻלָּה”?

One answer can be like David’s pointing to the habit to drop the vov or yud in words spelled with nikkud, and their insertion when words are spelled without nikkud.

I would like to suggest that here too the reason of inserting the vov is because of a lofty reason.

The Biblical term, “גְּאֻלָּה”, is different in its usage than “גאולה”, which refers to end of “גלות”, or the “גולה”. A vov refers to the concept in Jewish mysticism of “hamshachah”, a drawing down from Above to below, or how G-d illuminates this world.

If so, you might ask, isn’t there also a vov in “גולה”?

The basic Chassidic belief from the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov is that even during this time of “גלות”, exile, G-d is with us in an open and revealed way.

We say this in Psalm 23:4-:

.
Chapter 23:4
...ki atah eemahdee... for You are with me...

Atah, You refers to G-d directly, His very essence;
eemahdee, are with me refers to an essential relationship.

This shows that G-d’s presense is not normally hidden, but enjoins a person, even in times of trouble.

John,

> I visited Rabbi Loeb’s grave when I was in Prague.

I was told that in World War II, when the Nazis were leveling Prague, many non-Jews gathered by Rabbi Loeb’s gravesite, for there was a tradition among the non-Jews that in times of peril, they should collect by his grave, as Rabbi Loeb would protect them.

===

The oldest standing synagogue existed in Prague. I believe the Nazis destroyed it. It housed the body of the famed Golem, creatred by Rabbi Loeb, upstairs in the attic, among the shaimos, old books and manuscripts that contain G-d’s holy name.

Once when the fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, the Rebbe Reshab, was traveling, he took his only son, Rabbi Joseph Isaac, with him to that synagogue to pray. Rabbi Joseph Isaac was only a young boy then, and curious, he ascended the stairs to the attic to see if there really were the remains of the Golem there. After a short time, he descended with a scared white look on his face. The Rebbe Reshab took a very long time to pray the evening service. He then told his son: “I had to turn around the heavens for you.”

Why did he say that?

===

Many years later, the Nazis overran Prague, and invaded this synaggue. Two Nazis brazenly ascended the steps too, in search of the Golem.

One Nazi pierced his bayonet into the pile of old books and manuscripts, to show that no such Golem was there. He froze, and died on the spot. His colleague, the other Nazi ran down thesteps with a frightened, white face. He died a short time later.

Here are the various verses in the Book of Ruth.

.
Apparently, the rule cited by John holds true, that the gimmel has a dagesh when it begins a word, but it does not have a dagesh after it follows a vowel.

The exceptions to this are found in Jeremiah 32:7-8, shown above, where the world “geulah” has a hei and a patach, or better known as the “hei hayadu’ah”, when an object is singled out with the preface, “the”, as it is used in English.

Orange rectangle= dagesh hazak

Aside:

The old Jewish quarter in Prague is very well preserved, Israel, as is most of the rest of the city. Prague was spared from major aerial bombardment during the war and, with characteristic perversity, the Nazis planned to preserve the Jewish quarter as a museum of the people whom they intended to destroy. There are at least two pre-war synagogues still standing, as well as the cemetery, and many houses and buildings where Jews lived, ran businesses, and met in the many philanthropic and devotional organisations. It is a fascinating neighbourhood to walk around.

[Another place of pilgrimage for every visitor to Prague should be the crypt of the Orthodox Christian Cathedral of Saints Cyril and Methodius. This is where seven Czech commandos, responsible for the assassination of the SS security chief Reinhard Heydrich, the ’Butcher of Prague’, made their last stand against almost 800 German troops.]

David,

You seem to say that a gimmel with a dagesh in it, even after a vowel, is not an ordinary dagesh. Rather, it is a dagesh chazak, a strong dagesh.

===

John,

Was one of the old synagogues still standing in Prague, the Old-New Shul, that housed the remains of the Golem?

I thought that it was destroyed.

===

It is there also that a very old Sefer Torah scroll has an aleph, which most modern-day Sefer Torah scrolls have a hei. This is evidence that the aleph is correct, and similar to the original text, even though it would be more logical to have an aleph.

Examples of three types of gimmel: a) a gimmel with a dagesh chazak, b) a gimmel with an ordinary dagesh, and c) a gimmel without a dagesh

David,

> ...what are you referring to?

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi — Siddur Rabbeinu Hazoken

Kehot Publication Society:
“Compiled by Rabbi Levi Y. Raskin
Marking the 201st anniversary of the publication of the Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi‘s Siddur with this special bicentennial edition. A well researched, definitive and encyclopedic edition that offers citations and explanations of the sources and reasoning, behind Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s rulings about halacha, prayer phraseology and pronunciation...

I have an earlier copy of this, which I rarely use.

Most Lubavitchers use a weekday prayerbook, and a Sabbath an holiday prayerbook, called “Tehillat Hashem”. This, the Siddur Rabbeinu Hazoken, is purely a scholarly book.

The seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe himself used an older edition printed in Vilna, Lithuania at the Romm family printing establishment, called the Torah Ohy Siddur, which included the rulings and explanations of his scholar maternal grandfather.

Apparently, you are referring to something specific there.

As you know, Rabbi Schneur Zalman was a Hebrew grammar master, and sorted through seventy editions of the prayerbook until he composed his version of the Nusach Ari, the liturgy of the holy Ari”zal. This liturgy is unigue as it parallels the 13th path of the splitting of the Sea of Reeds for those who do not know which tribe they belong to. The other 12 paths have been lost. The other popular liturgies were introduced relatively recently.

Israel, Biblical Grammar books explain the strong and weak dagesh in detail. Determining what is strong and weak leads to the same kind of chain of questions and conditions as was the case for the kamatz katan.

L’shana tova tikatev

At first glance, it will then be possible to determine a logical sequence for a kamatz katan, I think, but the sequence needs to include a multiple wild card.

In a CSUB string can wild cards be included, John?

If not, then a conditional set of strings can then be created.

My guess is this will be the case, then, for the hataf kamatz katan, and maybe even the shva-na and the meteg as well.

Let’s see it unravel.

There is a very beautiful custom I learned among the Sephardic Jews to extend the customary greeting of:
l’shana tova t’katev v’t’chataym both on the first and second nights of Rosh Hashana.

Ashkenazic Jews do so only on the first night.

Logically, if we say that Rosh Hashana is one very long day, we should do so only on the second night.

In any case, the impact of this custom is that G-d sees that His children are united together, and like a parent towards children united together, this awakes His good will to bless them.

L’shana tova t’katav v’t’chataym.

> It is there also that a very old Sefer Torah scroll has an aleph, which most modern-day Sefer Torah scrolls have a hei. This is evidence that the aleph is correct, and similar to the original text, even though it would be more logical to have an aleph.

It should read:

It is there also that a very old Sefer Torah scroll has an aleph, which most modern-day Sefer Torah scrolls have a hei. This is evidence that the aleph is correct, and similar to the original text, even though it would be more logical to have a hei.

It would be grammatically correct to have a hei.

I heard a very wonderful explanation why we use an apple specifically to dip in honey.

Aren’t there other sweet fruits to use?

In Hebrew, an apple is called a “tah-pu-ach”.

“Tapuach” means something filled up very full.

On Rosh Hashana, we beseech G-d to be blessed with a good and sweet year filled up very full with blessings. This prayerful wish is symbolized by using an apple.

I also heard that red is associated with sweetness, and green is less, as we see often with apples in general.

David,

In Lev. 25:29, the gimmel of “guelato” (the last word in the verse) is without a dagesh, even though it is not preceded with a vowel.

I don’t know what a letter that has either a weak dagesh or a strong dagesh is called when it has no dagesh.

Earlier, I remarked on John’s statement about the impact of a dagesh that a “...“spirant” sound is soft, smooth, and longer, while a dagesh sound is hard, abrupt, and shorter.”

So, a letter without a dagesh is “spirant” - soft, smooth, and longer.

John, what you are saying is that the sound emitted when a letter has no dagesh is different than a letter which has a dagesh, in all circumstances (not only in beit, kaf, peh, and tav).

For example, in Numbers 24:5, we begin ’davenning’ every day with the word’s of Bilaam’s blessing for the Jewish people, after seeing that their tents were assembled in a modest manner, with the openning of the tent not facing the openning of the neighbor’s tent.

Mah tovu - how goodly... would be pronounced differently if there was not a dagesh in the teht.

.
Is this physically possible?

Israel,

Last sample — Mah tovu: I think that you need to have...makkef; not meteg, but merekha. the dagesh is hazak. we call it dehik; and there’s ate merahik.

(today is a short day, so let’s see; if not today, I’ll post about that after rosh hashanah)

David,

This post was from the siddur, where there is no taam. I was only trying to demonstrate with and without a dagesh.

I will try to post these words from a chumash.

Israel, you do understand, don’t you, that the Tiberian system of nikkud preserves many distinctions that no longer exist in spoken Hebrew? The Ashkenasi pronunciation, which I believe you use, does, unlike the Israeli Hebrew, distinguish two pronunciations of Tav, with and without the dagesh, but not a difference in pronunciation of the gimmel with and without the dagesh. And evidently there was a difference in ancient times. There are many other examples. That’s why this whole thing is so arcane.

William,

> That’s why this whole thing is so arcane

I disagree, based upon very simple logic.

First, in historical terms, many people use the past as a living lesson to learn from in a way that improves their lives.

As learning from Avot and to cultivate good midot is an important factor at your institute to become a mensch.

So, you see the past is a vital part of the future.

Second, the difference between the customary (often unlearned) pronunciation in Israel, and many millions of certain Jews in America, and an older manner of speech used by millions of other Jews in the whole world, is only at this time.

But, as they say, “the times they are a’changing”.

In the words of our sages of blessed memory, we say every day: “[...He] raises the lowly to supreme heights.” Today, it’s lowly and arcane, but tomorrow it will be lofty and significant.

I think that it’s important to know both systems well. Hedge your bets, as they say. :)

It’s like the future of Reform Judaism. It’s a factor to deal with today, but it may be less and less of a factor in the future.

K’tiva v’cha’ti’ma tova.

Was one of the old synagogues still standing in Prague, the Old-New Shul, that housed the remains of the Golem?

Yes, the Old New Shul is still there. The upper room, the genizah where the legendary Prague Golem was kept, is closed to the public of course.

In a CSUB string can wild cards be included, John?

Note: GSUB, not CSUB. G for glyph.

It is possible to define glyph groups that can then be employed like wildcards in context strings. So, for example, you might have a glyph group for ’any_mark’ or for ’any_letter’ that would contain all the appropriate glyphs. These can be used in both GSUB and GPOS lookups.

The vocalisation of the Bible text as standardised by the Tiberian — i.e. Palestinian — Masoretes, represents the pronunciation as current around the 8th–10th Century, i.e. more than a thousand years after the last of the original consonantal texts was written. We know for a fact that this mediaeval pronunciation did not perfectly match the ancient pronunciation, because of those places in the text where the vowels do not match neatly the number of consonants, the most famous example being the vocalisation of YRShLM as if it were YRShLYM. As I wrote in one of the other threads, vowels are the most fluid aspect of language, both in terms of individual pronunciation and in terms of regional and historical variation. A vowel is a movement of air through the throat and mouth, and as such is much less precise than a consonant, which is a restriction or stoppage of air at a specific point in the throat or mouth. I remember reading some time ago about a linguistic professor who had trained himself to perfectly produce cardinal vowel sounds according to the open/closed, front/medial/back analysis of vowel sounds, but this was remarkable exactly because this is not how people normally talk.

I searched for “ג [anything but a blank]* א [anything but a blank]* ל [anything but a blank]* ה” (where * means one or more of the thing between brackets) and found this single instance with a ו in the short resulting list:

> where * means one or more of the thing between brackets

Correction: * means zero, one or more. There could be no character between ג and א and there would be a match. The word גאלה matches the pattern.

Michel,

You are living proof the the Talmud’s statement, “ya’ga’ta u’ma’tza’ta” - if you really search, you’ll find!

John,

So, the Golem’s remains are still here with us. And I assume the ancient Torah scroll, I think one of the oldest, is similarly ’living’ proof of one of Masoretic texts.

I know that every Purim holiday, when we recite this passage from the Sefer Torah scroll, we “read” both versions out loud, even if only one version is written there.

About the wildcard searches, I will discuss with you by email what I have in mind. Actually, I want to use this feature in a few different ways, as we will discuss.

===

In Michel’s example, this is a strong dagesh, because most gimmels which follow a vowel do not have a dagesh. Usually, only a gimmel which begins a verse has a dagesh. Some gimmels that begin a verse do not have a dagesh.

What is a gimmel without a dagesh which begins a verse called?

===

On Rosh Hashana, as I recited in the prayerbook the holiday prayers, I noticed the appearance of the gimmel a lot, whether it had a dagesh or not, and whether it followed a vowel or not.

First, I noticed that in general the gimmel appeared with much less frequency that most other letters. Is this why its form is less significant (i.e. more narrow)? :)

Second, when any noun followed after a “hei ha-ye-di-ah”, a hei with a patach (eg. the xxxx), the first letter has a dagesh. Hence, even if the gimmel follows after a vowel, in this case it has a dagesh, and is not necessarily a strong dagesh.

In this second example, what is this dagesh called?

.

Where in books of Hebrew grammar is kamatz katan discussed?

> if you really search, you’ll find!

Maybe, but searching more gives this from the mechon mamre tanakh with the same Ruth 4:7

Michel, I checked Ruth 4:7 in my print editions, and the gimel appears in the Codex Leningradensis (so occurs in the BHK, BHS and BHL editions). The gimel also appears in my JPS Tanakh (1999).

The Mechom Mamre online Tanakh is based on the JPS 1917 edition. I wonder if the gimel is omitted in the 1917 printed text, or if it is an error or editorial decision in the electronic version?

Anyone have a 1917 JPS Tanakh at hand?

These examples show that the gimmel has a strong dagesh, even where the letter preceding it has a vowel.

I assume the gimmel has a strong dagesh even when it has no letter preceding it.

John,

> Anyone have a 1917 JPS Tanakh at hand?

I think that my mother has one. I’ll look for it in some box. You mean a gimmel with a dagesh right? Not just a gimmel?

You do mean “if the gimel is omitted in the 1917 printed text” really “if the dagesh in the gimmel is omitted in the 1917 printed text”?

Or, maybe, you are referring to the shuruk (the vov with a dot on its left side)?

It appears to me that if anyone claims that his or her pronunciation is important and meaningful, such as the recital of a prayer, then that pronunciation should be correct.

If I mispronounce anything in speaking to another person, out of neglect or laziness, and the response is similar or worst, should I be surprized?

It seems that knowledge of kamatz katan, hataf kamatz katan, meteg, shva-na etc. is important to correct pronunciation.

It seems Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist etc. should teach their adherents these Hebrew grammar rules, and Hebrew type designers should include the glyphs for kamatz katan, hataf kamatz katan, meteg, and shva-na, in their fonts.

To do so, the Unicode Consortium should support usage of all these glyphs. Hence, not only should kamatz katan and meteg be supported, but hataf kamatz katan, and shva-na, should be allocated Unicode values as well.

Since we find multiple publishers using hataf kamatz katan, and shva-na, the Unicode Consortium has no reason to object to supporting them properly.

My Unicode text has it with a vov (shuruk) too.

The shva-na in the popular Talmudic section, “Pirkei Avot”, “Chapters of Our Fathers”, studied each year by over a million people.

> The Mechom Mamre online Tanakh is based on the JPS 1917 edition.

I took the text from This Tanakh which they say to be “לפי הכתר וכתבי היד הקרובים לו”; my understanding is that this is coming from The Aleppo Codex. Here is a grab from the online digitization of the codex corresponding to Ruth 4:7. The last word leaves no possible ambiguity.

Michel,

Thank you for this sample, and the link to the Aleppo Codex.

Are there similar links to other versions of the Tanach text, where one can view it in its entirety online?

Excuse my ignorance, but can you list the different versions, ages, and minor textual differences of the various Tanach texts?

Which one are the Dead Sea Scrolls most similar to?

I was told that no scholar has documented the differences comprehensively. Is this true?

Do each of these versions exist as Unicode texts? If they do, then to create a comprehensive chart of differences should be rather simple. Is this not true?

Israel, your quote is not from Avot proper, but rather a passage from Sanhedrin (90a), which in turn is referring to Isaiah 60:21, where your example of the shva na is from. This passage is traditionally read before studying a chapter of Avot.

I am really baffled by where you are going with these examples, and why you are asking about what Biblical grammar books say about them. Why don’t you just read the books?

By the way if I’m not mistaken a chataf kamatz is always pronounced as a kamatz katan, ie as ’o’ rather than ’a’ in Israeli pronunciation.

John, the changes from ancient pronunciation are not only in vowels, but also consonants. If I remember rightly scholars say that without the dagesh the ’beged kefet’ letters all had soft sounds. IIRC the soft gimel had the sound of g in George, the soft dalet the ’th’ in ’the’ and the tav the ’th’ in ’thin’. Also the ayin had the ’ng’ sound, rather than being just a glottal stop, like aleph. Apparently Yemeni Jews still pronounce the soft tav with a ’th’ (the askenasi uses an ’s’), and Iraqis pronounce still pronounce the ayin as ’ng’.

By the way, I suspect Hebrew would sound more beautiful if all the soft sounds were restored. Both Mandarin Chinese and French—to me the most beautiful sounding of languages—have no hard sounds (t, k, etc) at the end of syllables. They are also both ’court’ languages, whose pronunciation was I believe deliberately refined. Perhaps the same thing happened with ancient Hebrew, as letters at the end drop the dagesh, and so the sounds are soft—not fully closing the mouth and sharply cutting the sound, as in the English “stop”.

William,

>your quote is not from Avot proper, but rather a passage from Sanhedrin (90a), which in turn is referring to Isaiah 60:21, where your example of the shva na is from. This passage is traditionally read before studying a chapter of Avot.

I am aware that this is not from Avot proper. Nevertheless, I decided to begin citing examples of shva-na etc. from Avot, I would use this Biblical verse, as many people associate this with Avot, as you explain.

Israel,

I am no scholar of Hebrew; I once had projects related to natural language processing but I have not worked in that field for more than 10 years, though we have a strong research group in that field in my department, the RALI (Université de Montréal). I am not qualified to tell you what is available and what is not.

I found some online resources here. If I just look at the various versions available on the mechon mamre site, the Cantillated Tanakh is utf-8 encoded but is is made of about 930 different files. Other versions on their site are so encoded that I could find no way to produce a utf-8 text out of them. I have found no plain text utf-8 versions that are almost ready to compare.

Michel

William,

> I am really baffled by where you are going with these examples,

The purpose of citing these samples is two-fold.

First, it is incumbant upon the Unicode Consortium to include the shva-na, hataf kamatz gadol, and the meteg used in nikkud texts (which may have a slightly different form than the meteg used in the Bible) as Unicode values in the next version of Unicode. I believe by posting the extensive use of them will influence the decision of the Unicode Consortium.

Second, I am a professional expert Hebrew typesetter. There are three other people that I am aware of that are also professional expert Hebrew typesetters. However, their knowledge of Hebrew grammar is poor. By posting these samples, I believe that they will be able to professionally typeset important Hebrew texts with these correct markings. As a result, future generations of readers of these texts will be knowledgeable much more than the sorry state we are in today.

> and why you are asking about what Biblical grammar books say about them?

I am trying to increase my knowledge of Hebrew grammar in order to program these Hebrew grammar rules into a large set of “smart” OpenType Hebrew fonts.

> Why don’t you just read the books?

I am currently studying the book on Hebrew grammar by Mr. Seow which you recommended, and on Biblical Hebrew Grammar by Prof. Chomsky based upon Rabbi David Kimhi’s understanding.

John Hudson recommended two other books in particular by Joshua Jacobson, which I have, and another one, which I will have soon.

William,

> By the way if I’m not mistaken a chataf kamatz is always pronounced as a kamatz katan, ie as ’o’ rather than ’a’ in Israeli pronunciation.

First, are we both speaking of a ’hataf kamatz katan”? Not an ordinary “hataf kamatz”.

I don’t think there is such a thing as a hataf kamatz katan.

The wikipedia article niqqud doesn’t mention it, nor does Seow’s grammar. But both of these, as well as my “Ben Yehudah’s Pocket English-Hebrew Hebrew-English Dictionary” say that the hataf kamatz is pronounced the same as the kamatz katan. However, in the Wikipedia article they say that ’Tiberian’ pronunciation has a short ’o’ for the hataf kamatz. I don’t know what that’s about, but in any case there is no ’hataf kamatz katan.’

I suspect that the the texts you show are simply making the kamatz larger in the hataf kamatz to remind people that it is pronounced like a kamatz katan. But it’s always pronounced that way, at least according to the Israeli system.

I know that in Ashkenazi pronunciation, which I assume you use, all of them are ’o’, and there are no distinctions in pronunciation between the kamatz vs the kamatz katan or hataf kamatz.

Here are the Papers formally submitted to the Unicode Technical Committee and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2.

Of special interest for the qamats qatan is N2821: Clarification on the name QAMATS QATAN by Michael Everson and Mark Shoulson.

If you search for the word “Hebrew” in the above list of papers you will find other interesting documents.

Michel

Here are the [...]

Correction: it is obviously only a selection of papers.

#1 — Ginsburg
#2 — Koren
#3 — Snaith
#4 — Adi (Dotan edition)
#5 — Sinai
#6 — Jerusalem Crown/Breuer

$1 million ;^) if you know what is this dagesh called? :^)

Give my million to tzedaka. :)

Wait, wait, gimme a chance! (I love challenge games)

Excuse my ignorance:

is a dagesh in a taf related to its position in a word, like the regular dagesh in a gimmel at the beginning of a word,

or a strong dagesh (chazak) in a gimmel in the middle of a word after a letter with a nikkud vowel,

or is it intrinsically part of a word’s meaning such as a peh hapoel, ayin hapoel, or lamed hapoel, one of the three parts of a word’s root.

Gimme a hint. Is it in Kimchi’s book?

Israel: You do mean “if the gimel is omitted in the 1917 printed text” really “if the dagesh in the gimmel is omitted in the 1917 printed text”?

I mean the gimel itself. I was responding to Michel’s posts noting the discrepancy in different editions in Ruth 4:7.

Michel’s follow-up message showing the scan of the Aleppo Codex indicates that the gimel is missing in this source, while the variety of print editions I have based on the Codex Leningradensis indicate that it is present in that source. So we have a discrepancy between the Aleppo and Leningrad codices.

John,

gimel or vav?

David,

Have you ever seen in any literature about Hebrew grammar mention about a “hataf kamatz katan”, or seen a sample of “hataf kamatz katan” in any other book besides a Shay Lemorah publication?

William suggests that Rabbi Shmuel Winefeld made it up, because there is no Wikipedia article about it yet, nor does Mr. Eliezer Ben Yehuda doesn’t mention it in his “Ben Yehudah’s Pocket English-Hebrew Hebrew-English Dictionary”.

If you placed Rabbi Shmuel Winefeld on one side of the scale, and then you placed Mr. Eliezer Ben Yehuda, the father of modern Hebrew, upon the other side of the scale, who pray tell would outweigh the other?

Are the writings of the Rishonim available to read in the original, I assume, Hebrew? I am sure JTS has them to review and make photo-copies. Do you know their names and authors? I’m talking about Rabbi David Kimchi’s sources.

Michel or John or David of...,

Does this word, tahara, appear anywhere in the Bible?

David,

What is hataf to another vowel, such as kamatz, patach, or segol?

If we understand how a hataf modifies a kamatz, patach, or segol, then we can understand how a hataf affects a kamatz katan.

Perhaps, we need to also understand how a kamatz is different from a kamatz katan.

tahara in Hebrew = טהרה

Israel,

>Does this word, tahara, appear anywhere in the Bible?
> tahara in Hebrew = טהרה

Yes, of course. See, for example, Leviticus 12:4,5

David,

Do you have a concordance in software, a Bible in your memory, or magic fingers?

Israel,

And if I’m going to say memory — are you going to believe? :) No, I don’t have software and alike (the rest of your questions — let me eat something first :) )

Actually, in Leviticus 12:4,5,6, and 8, the word טהרה appears five times.

Three times it’s spelled as in the Long Blessing After Eating Kinds of Special Fruit, Cake, or Wine, with a “hataf kamatz katan” (twice with a hei and dagesh, and once with only an ordinary hei with a makef or rafe over it).

One time it’s spelled with a hataf patach, and preceded with a vov and shva, and the other time it’s spelled with a tzay-ray under the first hei, and preceded with a vov and shva.

David,

> memory — are you going to believe? :)(... — let me eat something first :) )

I grew up as a kid with an ordinary memory. I didn’t remember where I put the keys a half hour ago. I couldn’t recall my cousin’s name, and I just saw him a few months before.

But after I became a Chassidic Jew in my early twenties, I was advised to compose a monthly report to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, which I concluded by asking for his blessing to succeed in learning Torah.

The blessing was fulfilled as I gained a remarkable memory too, like you, for success in learning is aided by a great memory.

Anyway, I fasted earlier, and am hungry now. Anyone want some cheesecake? :)

Israel,

I don’t think that Bill is wrong. A hataf kamats is also a kamats katan, an “o” (in short: the kamats was an “a” — e.g. katal + an “u” —e.g. kul -> kol. when the pronunciation was an “a” or an “o” (kamats hatof/hataf kamats )? your origin, area.

Short history: back.... the old days the kamats katan was tsere; also kamats katan with two dots was tsere. kamats — kamats gadol or wide; patah — patah gadol; segol — patah katan.

> If you placed Rabbi Shmuel Winefeld on one side of the scale, and then you placed Mr. Eliezer Ben Yehuda

like World Wrestling? :)

Well. I’m kinda worried. Rabbi Winefeld is a skinny old man, and they say that Eliezer Ben Yehuda was really fat. All those felafels, pita, and techina! :)

===

I hear your view and read your historical precedences. But Winefeld published in his books both a “kamatz katan” and a “hataf kamatz katan”, too. So, in his mind, “hataf kamatz katan” must serve a different purpose.

He must have something in mind. Plus, knowing his mentality as a heredi scholarly rabbi, he must have a strong source in the writings of early Rishonim to hold his view and publicize it. Plus, did you see the list of endorsees he has for his works? Eliezer would hide under his couch (if he could fit) and hide out of shame. :)

Did Rabbi Winefeld distinguish between a “hataf kamatz” and a “hataf kamatz katan”?

I suspect that he is just calling a “hataf kamatz” by a different name, to make clear that its pronunciation is like a kamatz katan.

Israel,

> seen a sample of “hataf kamatz katan” in any other book besides a Shay Lemorah publication?

Yes, I have something with hataf kamats + sheva na; I’ll look later on.

Well, when I told you that every hataf is sheva na...what did you say? ’I don’t care’ :)

David,

> what did you say? ’I don’t care’

I care about everything, even the price of tea in China. After, some poor British bloke might be in Shangtea, and can’t afford his afternoon tea. :)

> I have something with hataf kamats + sheva na

I would like to present a scan of what you have, and a scan of a Shay LeMorah sample to the Unicode consortium, so that Unicode values will be added for these two glyphs. Then, in the future these two symbols can be inserted into Unicode Hebrew data files of Tanach and other texts.

===

William,

> Did Rabbi Winefeld distinguish between a “hataf kamatz” and a “hataf kamatz katan”?

Yes, in different books Rabbi Winefeld published texts that had both “hataf kamatz” and “hataf kamatz katan” and “shva-na” graphic symbols. He did this intentionally. He invested money into a custom-made TrueType font that included these glyphs as separate entities.

Your explanation does not address this possibility.

My guess is if we sort through early writings from the early Rishonim about the nuances of Hebrew grammar, we will find a discussion of this aspect of Hebrew speech. If so, it becomes just as valid and significant as “zei a mensch”, the importance of maintaining a Jewish standard. One aspect is behavioral, and another is verbal.

Shabbos is coming. Before I wish everyone “Shabbat Shalom”, allow me to relate a remark or two that I heard from a Lubavitcher rabbi at a distant Chabad House that I attended.

His 10 year old daughter served a steaming bowl of chicken soup with a puffy matzah ball one Friday night. The rabbi eyed how I delighted slupping it up. He commented, “If the discussions of Judaism don’t bring a Jew closer to practicing Judaism, the chicken soup on Friday night will.”

In Rochester, NY, the Chabad House had a small but very popular “Beginner’s Service” each Saturday morning. Many members of the large nearby Reform temple snuck away from the weekly services to join the Chabad House ’minyan’ just before its conclusion, to participate in the “hot” kiddush. While the Reform members were munching on some warm delicious kugel, the rabbi remarked: “Some people become more observant because of seeing Chassidic joy, some people become more observant because of learning profound ideas in Judaism, but others become more observant because of warm kugel!”

My kugel is calling. :)

Shabbat Shalom!

David,

I found another application of the hataf kamatz katan.

In the Zemirot, close to a million Jews sing every Shabbat (which is in the ’Niggunim of Lubavitch’, that close to a quarter million Lubavitchers sing every Friday night after eating Gefiltte Fish and before eating Chicken Soup), reprinted in dozens of prayerbooks and Sabbath booklets, by Kehot, ArtScroll, Feldheim, and others, the following appears:

The following are postings from various books or booklets from the Shay Lemora publishing house of Jerusalem, Israel. Shay Lemora is a small Hebrew publishers, with books distributed worldwide. Its owner is Rabbi Shmuel Yehuda Weinfeld, an eldery great scholar, the likes of which only appear every few generations. He is familiar with the bulk of traditional Jewish literature since the Bible and before.

Note the circle with a small asterisk to indicate a shva na.
Note also the kamatz katan, or elongated kamatz.

Note the circle with a small asterisk to indicate a shva na.

Note the circle with a small asterisk to indicate a shva na.
Note also the kamatz katan, or elongated kamatz.

Here are examples from three other very large Jewish publishers, 1) Kehot (the official Lubavitch publishing house - with the widest circulation in the world), 2) ArScroll (the largest private Jewish publisher in the world, due to their enormous popularity in the United States, Canada, England and other English speaking countries, and 3) Otzar Sifrei Lubavitch (the unofficial Lubavitch publishing house - with a large market of English books and translations - their prayerbooks appeared with Kehot logo, and are currently subject to court-ordered injunction).

Note the small asterisk to indicate a shva na in the Lubavitch publications, and the short vertical line in the ArtScroll books. The symbol for a shva na is more widely used than a kamatz katan, as the meaning of some words is actually changed by the presence of a shva na. A kamatz katan only affects pronunciation.

Note the Hebrew message describing the appearance of an asterisk to indicate a shva na.

Israel,

> Note the Hebrew message describing the appearance of an asterisk to indicate a shva na.

Note the year: 1978; see the same siddur that was published in 2002:

The two look-alike pages of the Kehot praterbook by two different publishers.

On the left hand side is the official edition from Kehot, reprinted hundreds of times since the mid-sixties. A newly typeset edition has been produce, one from New York, and one from Israel. Each is different is terms of the graphical appearance (typeface, page layout and design), editorial addmendments, such as notations, instructions, grammar marks,etc.

On the right hand side is the non-official (some say bootleg and illegal) from Otzar Sifrei Lubavitch, but with a Kehot logo. It is the most like the original of the three new versions. But it was intentionally made to like the old edition, but featured inferior commercial fonts and poor “matching” page layout. The publisher is now closed, and out of business.

David,

Your posting is from Kehot of Israel.

My two postings are the original and the Otzar edition. The original was pasted together from many older prayerbooks to avoid copyright infringement; hence, it features many many different versions of the traditional “siddur” typeface. The Otzar was made to be its clone, like Windows is a clone of Macintosh (which is a clone of Xerox, which is a clone of John Warnock’s brain...).

I will try to locate the missing Kehot of New York version, newly typeset. The director thinks no one knows what a shva-na is, and reduced the size of the asterisk to very very very small. (The Rebbe never liked Yossi as head of Kehot - I never said that.)

John, if we don’t do something, people will speak of dinasaurs and shva-nas in the same breath. Can’t Unicode spare a few code values?

“Yes, Nancy, the shva-na walked the earth over two billion years ago. It descended from a wild boar, or ape, or something...uh, uh...wild cow. Yeah, that’s it. Phhh, now that’s kosher.”

Were there cows billion of years ago?

Moadim lesimcha!

A standard prayer said at the conclusion of the “Havdala” הבדלה ceremony is “vtayn lecha” ותן לך , which contains various verses.

Many shva-na marks appears about different words, which have a shva.

Here is one example:

David,

It occurred to me. Is every appearance of [et] habr’cha then contain a shvana? If yes, does every similarly structured word that begins in this way “habr’xxx” also have a shvana? If yes, does every similar kind of sequence (eg. ha-letters_like_beit_followed by letters_like_reish&hei) have a shvana?

David,

Similar to the above question, I’ve seen consistantly that every time the sequence “kol” כָל chaf-kamatz-lamed appear, regardless of the preposition, the kamatz is always a kamatz ktan.

Is this accurate?

If so, one simply can search this sequence chaf-kamatz-lamed-space or khaf-kamatz-lamed-space and replace it with chaf-kamatz_katan-lamed-space or khaf-kamatz_katan-lamed-space, or just build this GSUB directive into the “smart” OpenType Hebew font. Right?

John,

Currently, there is no Unicode value for shvana. So, when I add these glyphs to data files using InDesign ME, a different Unicode value is actually added instead.

So, later, after the Unicode Consortium adds a shvana to the Hebrew section of values, I will have to search and replace these additions which I made to the data files, and also repeat this glyph in the font, once with the original fake Unicode value, and again with the new true Unicode value. Right?

Here are two examples of two identically constructed Hebrew words, located in two different locations in Scriptures, with a shvana symbol over a shva.

If we identify similar structures of Hebrew words, with similar patterns of nikkud vowels, will they too have a shvana above the shva?

For example, most Hebrew words contain three root-letters. Each root-letter belongs to different group of letter types. Then, there are other types of letters in a Hebrew word, such as prepositions (such as the beit, lamed, and mem), or “modifiers”, which alter the over all meaning of the word.

If a shvana occurs over a type of root-letter with a shva under it, with two other types of root-letters with identical nikkud vowels, then will the shvana also occur over a type of root-letter with a shva under it too?

And if the same prepositions or modifiers occur in or around them, then do the shvana also occur?

Here are four examples of similar kinds of words with a shvana, from Biblical and Mishnaic sources.

There are a few kinds of patterns here.

First, the first of the three letter roots is a gimmel with a dagesh, following a preposition of a hei.

Does every occurance of a gimmel with a dagesh in the first of the three letter roots, following a preposition, have a shvana too?

Israel,

The example is from Deut 28:8, not 24:8.

1. kol is kamtas katan; also Word/Letters — Makkef — Kol — Makkef — Word/Letters; Kol — Makkef — Word/Letters —- the kol is kamtas katan

2. sheva na: in general bet, kaf, lamed, he + patah = sheva na. but you need to remember that there’re exciptional + traditions; and of course teaamim.

BTW, see the classic example: shay la’morah (no sheva na); kehot (with sheva na) — Deut 6

David,

There are apparently three sets of rules to indicate a shva is a shvana.

Kehot USA uses one. ArtScroll uses another. Shay Lemorah uses a third.

If we understand the rules, then each editor’s choice becomes clear.

There appears to be specific patterns among different kinds of Hebrew words, when contructed in the same manner (meaning: with the same sequence of nikkud), then the first shva always becomes a shvana.

A “hei yediya” is a pronoun, like the preposition in English, the, as in “the rain in Spain”. In Hebrew, the preposition, the, is a single letter, hei (usually with a patach), and is attached to the noun following it (hence, its a pronoun). When that noun begins with a letter and a shva, then a shvana symbol is added in order to indicate to the reader that it should be pronounced as a shvana.

This is something that can simply be programmed into a “smart” OpenType font with the GSUB routine for automatic replacement, like what John Hudson did in SBL-Hebrew for the furtive patach.

Here are some examples:

As we discover and define all the other kinds of patterns which produce a shvana, then these become a list of rules to program into OpenType.

David, do you think it’s possible now?

This then can be done for the kamatz katan, etc., with G-d’s help.

Can this be done with the taamim and nikkud to decipher the rules for the taggim as well?

David,

In your example above, you show how the Kehot editor (the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe or one of his ancestors) and the Shay Lemorah editor (Rabbi Shmuel Yehuda Winefeld Shlita) mark differently the word, “u’v’shachbacha”.

This word either has two shvanas, like the Kehot example (the first and third shva), or it only has one shvana, like Shay Lemorah (only above the third shva).

Here is an example:

Notice that the Kehot example does not acknowledge the kamatz katan. The Shay Lemorah example does mark it (under the shin).

Perhaps, this is a key to the difference.

Another series of examples of specific patterns among different kinds of Hebrew words, when contructed in the same manner (meaning: with the same sequence of nikkud), then the first shva always becomes a shvana.

In these examples, the first letter has a hirik, and it is followed by a letter with a shva. That second letter is always a shvana.

The exception is when the first letter is a yuhd, followed by a shin or siin.

More examples of the first letter with a chirik, and the second letter with a shva(na):

Clearly, the exception to this rule is when the first letter is a yud.

As an aside, much discussion is devoted to a word which begins with a yud in Jewish mystical literature, indicating its special status.

For example, G-d’s holiest name begins with a yud. The form of each letter is made from the shape of the yud. Although it is the smallest letter in size, it is (its gematria) represents the structure of every being (ten sephirot).

So, it is not surprizing that yud here creates an exception to the rule.

Another pattern repeating itself is when the first letter is a shuruk (a vov with a dagesh dot on its left side), and the second letter has a shva(na).

Here are some examples:

I didn’t find any exceptions.

Yet another pattern repeating itself is when the first letter is a ayin withe nikkud of patach, and the second letter has a shva(na).

Here are some examples:

The exception I found so far is when the letter following an ayin is a tzaddi, in which case the tzaddi has a shva and not a shvana.

Israel,

Do you have any grammar book around you? — just quick, fast glance: almost half of your samples are not right.

Please forget this assumption: “There are apparently three sets of rules to indicate a shva is a shvana.” !!!!!!! NO SUCH THING!!! you think that there are 3 sets, and you like to waste your time — start looking :^)

David,

I started at the first page of the Kehot daily siddur, because it was more comprehensive in its text than Shay Lemorah books. I didn’t have many ArtScroll books about me, as I am a Chabadsker and use Kehot books more.

I looked for different kinds of words, beginning with a letter and a particular nikkud, and then in second slot, another letter with a shva, and an asterisk on top of the second letter to indicate that it was a shva-na.

I categorized the different kind of words into groups. So far I presented three kinds: 1) a letter with a chirik first, followed by a second letter and a shva(-na); the exception was when the first letter was a yud; 2) a shuruk first, and then a second letter with a shva(-na); I didn’t find any exceptions; and 3) the first of a letter pair was an ayin and a patach, followed by the second part of the pair, a letter with a shva(-na).

If you feel that these examples are not right, I did not err, the editor of the Kehot prayerbook differs with you. I believe that was the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe, or one of his predecesors.

BTW, I am showing these preliminary samples to Prof. Aron Dotan for his feedback, too.

I do not understand how you can differ with authorities much greater than you. Your understanding must be based upon a different set of rules. A forth... :)

Seriously, so far, the pattern of shva-na in the Kehot prayerbook is very logical.

Israel,

so you don’t have a single book? not even one grammar book? and we didn’t start to talk about cantillations...... I think that I’m going to take a little break from the whole sheva na and alike till you’ll have a book or two; and show that you’re serious.

David,

I didn’t address books. I bought a few books, and am studying them, although they are far from systematic in their presentation or analytical. Prof. Chomsky’s book, “R. D. Kimchi’s Hebrew Grammar”, and C. L. Seow’s book, “A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew”.

I simply reported my findings from the Kehot prayerbook, and books by Shay Lemorah, which for my purpose did not address grammatical rules or logical rules, but simply found groups of similar patterns.

The GSUB routine is a simple search and replace feature built into “smart” OpenType fonts. I am addressing shva-na as strings to be searched and replaced.

Are shva-nas affected by the taamim/cantillation marks, as you suggest? I haven’t seen evidence of this.

Please cite examples where the same verse which has or has not a shva-na is affected by having taamim, to the point that a shva becomes a shva-na, or a shva-na becomes a shva.

As everyone is free to come and go as they wish, but if one sincerely values the subject, and is in the position to contribute, it would seem selfish not to participate intentionally.

Furthermore, our sages obm warn in the Chapters of the Father: “Lo habayshan yilamed” - “one who refrains from asking or teaching in turn fails to learn more”.

Israel, the Seow book is quite systematic and analytical, so I don’t know what you are talking about. I share David’s bafflement. Here on p. 10 are the four rules for when a shva is vocal:

1. It is at the beginning of a word...
2. It is the second of two, in immediate succession...
3. It comes immediately after a strong dagesh...
4. It comes immediately after a long vowel...

I have put ellipses in place of the Hebrew examples, but that’s the full content of the four rules.

Now the complication is when the dagesh is strong or weak, and whether the preceding vowel is long or short. And whether the dagesh is strong or weak is also influenced by whether the vowel previous to it is long or short, according to Seow.

Thus the big issue is when a vowel is long or short. And this cannot be told from syntax alone—from the string of letters—because the vowel is always long if it is on an accented syllable, according to Seow. And syntax does not indicate accent.

Now according to Chomsky, the division of vowels into short and long was an innovation of the Kimhi family, and it seems to be a real question as to whether this ever really existed before. Evidently you can ascertain whether something is a schva na with a dictionary look up system, and a dictionary that gives you the correct accents. But it is not a matter of syntax alone.

Now if the Lubovicher Rebbe #7 had a different system, that is a different matter. Either he had another system and rationale, in which case you ought to be able to ask someone, or he just got it wrong.

If you find out the Lubovicher system, it looks like that is only going to be for setting type for Lubovichers like yourself. That seems to me very limited, but if you want to do it, that’s fine. Just don’t imagine that it’s either the Kimhi system or modern.

As I said, my own conclusion in all this is just to go with the modern system, as explained by Chomsky. For there is no certainty at all about whether the Kimhi system is a correct view of the Tiberian system of nikkud, and now Hebrew is a living language. In anyone’s memory of a century ago, both Ashkenazi and Sfaradi pronunciation followed the modern rules, according to Chomsky.

William,

> the Seow book is quite systematic and analytical, so I don’t know what you are talking about.

I was refering to the other book.

Seow’s book is very good. It’s aimed to teach. His chapters are called “Lessons”.

In the Talmud, there are basic commentaries after one studies Rashi and Tesephot. One is called, Meharsha. Under his commentary is Chochmat Shlomo and Maharam.

I recall that I asked my teach about 30 years ago about the ease to read the understand the questions of Chochmat Shlomo, while Maharam was difficult to read, as his remarks were often cryptic.

My teacher explained to me that Chochmat Shlomo was a teacher, and experienced at wording complicated matters in a way that is easy to understand.

I think that this is similar to a difference in Seow’s and Chomsky’s books.

William,

>Here on p. 10 are the four rules for when a shva is vocal:...

I am familiar with this.

Apparetly, there are at least different methods to determine when a shva should a shva-na. This is (only) one method. There are two different methods.

I tried to express this earlier a few times.

As proof to this, we find different book publishers who identify a shva-na. Each mentions the source for their decision-making process. The results are different, too.

In the books from Kehot of USA, used by hundreds of thousands of people every day, one method is used, based upon the Rishonim, early post-Talmud scholars.

In the books from ArtScroll, also used by other hundreds of thousands of people every day, a different method is used, by the later authorities, Ibn Ezra (12th century) and Vilna Gaon (19th century).

In the books from Shay Lemorah, used by less than a hundred thousand people, a third method is used, by “early Rishonim and Minchat Shai).

When David remarked that my examples of shva-na were incorrect, he failed to cite support or produce visible examples. Tonight, when I recited the Havdallah prayer, I used a booklet from Shay Lemorah. I noticed that the booklet was different that the Kehot rules I cited earlier. This is likely what David saw too.

Instead of concluding that it’s wrong, I say that it’s different.

Apparently, if you apply 3 different sets of rules of shva-na, the same verses will look differently: each will identify a different number of shva-nas.

William,

>Now according to Chomsky...

I think that this is whay confused me earlier when reading his book on David Kimchi’s Hebrew Grammar.

Did Chomsky, the great scholar and grammartarian, simply translates Kimchi’s work (a great feat in itself), or introduce something innovative unique to Chomsky? It seems that it’s the former, and not the latter.

Perhaps, in your reading of both books, you see a difference in the way that they understand rules of Hebrew grammar.

William,

>...if the Lubovicher Rebbe #7 had a different system...

Rabbi M.M. Schneersohn, the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe, did not have any different system. No one has introduced a new meaningful system since the “Age of Hebrew Grammar”, as Chomsky calls it.

Rabbi Schneersohn was appointed by the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, his predecesor, to direct Kehot. Hence, he was likely responsible for editing its expanded prayerbook.

The fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Sholom Dovber Schneersohn, actually introduced a short version of this payerbook, together with other popular prayerbooks (of other nusachs), at the beginning of the 20th century, when they were in short supply after WWI.

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, actually produced the famous Nusach Ari prayerbook, based upon comparisons of many different prayerbooks, and incorporating certain rules of Hebrew grammar.

The system used by Kehot is based on his decisions.

The first Lubavitcher Rebbe was a contemporary of Vilna Gaon. Our understanding of the universe and the soul is from Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady’s explanations of the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings o