Timeline for The dagesh in "elo-ha" means what?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 2012 at 16:14 | comment | added | Ted Hopp | @Fred - Nice article link. The Sephardic pronunciation sort of suggests that what was stolen is not the patach from the previous letter, but the letter that the patach belongs to. It also has a nice example of a he-mapiq that is not feminine possessive. | |
| Sep 19, 2012 at 7:33 | comment | added | Fred | @DoubleAA Source for the notion that the name is an allusion to the patach being stolen by the previous letter. | |
| Sep 19, 2012 at 3:54 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @Fred patach ganuv == furtive patach | |
| Sep 19, 2012 at 3:27 | comment | added | Fred | Commenting to note that the patach that makes the pronunciation -aH is called a "patach genuvah" ("stolen" by the previous letter), and serves the same function as a patach under a final ח (e.g. miz-bei-ach). Monica is correct regarding pronunciation of the mapik hei. | |
| Sep 19, 2012 at 2:15 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | Just to emphasize, that generally such a marker is not necessary because when the letter has a vowel mark (even a shwa), it is clearly consonantal. Only in the rare case when it does not have a vowel and is still consonantal is the extra mark required. The case of a furtive patach (see also here) is unique because while the letter appears to have a vowel, the vowel is really under an imaginary previous letter, so the mappiq is still necessary. | |
| Sep 19, 2012 at 1:31 | history | answered | Ted Hopp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |