1 SHAMASH.ORG /usr/www/wwwhc/listserv/archives/heblang February 2000
2 72 10_RE: Ma'yan10_Jerry Blaz19_ffdog@earthlink.net31_Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:14:16 -0800563_us-ascii >From the examples you brought, it might appear that the appearance of the hataf is necessary ony in voiced gutterals and not in voiceless aspirant gutterals.<br><br>At 12:15 PM 1/31/00 +0200, you wrote: >I don't have an answer, but I want to add a couple of related points. > >The hataf is a solution for vocalizing a gutteral letter that should have a >sh'va. With that, ayin and het can, in some cases, take a sh'va nax. >Compare, for instance, 2 similar roots -- shin mem ayin vs. shin bet hey -- >when they get a suffix. e.g. shamata, shavita. [...]
75 108 10_RE: Ma'yan21_Rosenfelder, Yehezkel36_Yehezkel_Rosenfelder@icominfosys.com30_Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:50:29 +0200642_iso-8859-1 Let's differentiate between 'necessary' and 'possible'. A hataf replacing a sh'va na on a gutteral is 'necessary' because we could not pronounce it otherwise. On ma'yan, the hataf is 'possible' (or even 'expected'), but -- apparently -- not necessary.<br><br>Yesterday, I mentioned het and ayin. See also hey in tehdar (Ex 23, 3). But, aleph presents interesting contradictions too. Elokim is written with a hataf-segol. When prefixed with 'bachlam' (bet, chaph, lamed, mem) or vav, we get beylokim etc. (Also Yehezkel, Daniyel...) -- voiceless aleph with no vowel at all. But, compare la-elohim (Ex 22, 19) [maybe this is an [...]