1

When a word ends in two Seggols (or a Seggol and Patach, depending on whether the final letter is guttural), and the word is in pause, the first Seggol is lengthened to a Kamatz. Why is it not lengthened to a Tzereh?

What about those words which do not change their second-to-last vowel in pausal form, like מֶלֶךְ and קֶדֶם?

Improve this question
4
  • 2
    You say "the Babylonian system, where Seggol had merged with Patach" as if that system was later, but the phenomenon you refer to is present in Tiberian manuscripts!
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Apr 11 at 13:39
  • I was unclear. I meant that—according to my guess—this Tiberian phenomenon was influenced by the Babylonian system.
    – Qwertrl
    Commented Apr 11 at 13:51
  • The Tiberian system was influenced by the later Babylonian system after two Tiberian phonemes had merged?? Seems anachronistic
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Apr 11 at 13:55
  • I’m confused; do you mean to say that Segol and Patach had merged in Tiberian Hebrew? I feel that I’m missing something.
    – Qwertrl
    Commented Apr 11 at 14:41

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

These nouns are a subgroup of the larger group of Segolate words, which, as noted in the linked Wikipedia article, are conjectured to have descended from older semitic words, where, often, the penultimate syllable would not have taken a segol but a patach. For example, yeled (child) is conjectured to have originaly been *yald.

Indeed, we see this pronunciation reappear when a possesive suffix is added to the word: "my child" is yaldi, with a patach under the yod.

Therefore (and this is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article) we should not be so surprised to see the original form re-assert itself in the pausal form, with the archaic patach lengthening to a kamatz, thus yaled.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .