Jump to content

Furtive Pathach Displayed as Regular Pathach


Martin Z
 Share

Recommended Posts

It should look like this:

post-32138-0-49324300-1550687105_thumb.png

 

The furtive Pathach is pronounced before ḥet.

The way Acc displays is like a regular pathach, it follows ḥet rather than precedes it.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furtive Pathach is distinguished by its placement at the end of the word, not by its position under the consonant. While some texts do print it on the righthand side of the consonant, others don't. It's a matter of preference and convention, not correctness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leningrad B19 and printed BHS place it to the right. B19, being a manuscript, is not 100% consistent in this, but probably 98-99% consistent.

 

post-32543-0-15156400-1550697424_thumb.png

 

From what I've seen in B19 and the Aleppo Codex, the Masoretes would have probably thought it was correct to move it to the right.

Nowadays, since moving the fp requires more work and expense, I would guess that not every printed or electronic text does it. Unicode also only has one value for ַ  , so you have to figure out which space values, including zero, to use with each consonant to prevent it from centering under the last consonant.

By the way, Logos has it to the right (100% of the time from what I've seen). I didn't take a picture of my BHS, I just saw that it looked exactly the same in Logos, and it was easier to take a screenshot of it.

I found that it was easier for students to learn syllable division with the fp slightly to the right. Since I used a printed BHS and L, Martin's question or observation never came up. I counted that a good thing for students in their second week of class.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Printed BHS text has it on the right side. Another text I've got, printed in Jerusalem, has it in the center. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Printed BHS text has it on the right side. Another text I've got, printed in Jerusalem, has it in the center. 

That is most likely due to an updated pronunciation, the Masorites always pointed the FP to the right in order of pronunciation from what I have seen. The printed edition you are referring to, is it a mass produced copy of sorts or something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is a comparison on Times New Roman, Accordance, Ezra SIL, and SBL Hebrew.

The former two have the FP below; the latter two have it to the right under.

It is true that we don't need it to be placed to the right for recognition. But I would strongly prefer it to be that way. It looks nicer (to me), and it communicates vividly that it should be pronunced before ḥet, and it should be ingored in syllabification. Now, Michel has also provided examples from B19 and Aleppo. This is also the way I was taught in first year Hebrew.

 

post-32138-0-08337400-1550709750_thumb.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first fp in B19, in Gen 1,2, is:

post-32543-0-13511000-1550759084_thumb.png

The next inconsistency is at Gen 8,1:

post-32543-0-32967300-1550759101_thumb.png

This word alone accounts for the less than perfect score for fp under the right of a consonant in B19. On the other hand, sometimes it can even be exaggerated like this (Gen 26,35):

post-32543-0-93380000-1550759117_thumb.png

But, of course, this might be due to the inconsistency of hand writing itself. It is most likely that the rule was to write it to the right, and the scribe either missed the starting point, or, went past the end point.

I do agree with Martin. BHS in print, and electronic BHS in Logos and OliveTree, which allow the choice of Ezra SIL, have it to the right, like the Masoretes intended. What Martin has shown is that it might be a font issue. I copied and pasted וְרוּחַ from Acc in Gen 1,2, and with Ezra SIL the fp moved to the right (in Mellel and Word), as in my screenshot above.

Regards,

Michel

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 years later...

IMO the bottom line is it is not wrong to show furtive patach as you would a normal patach, but it is a nice helper for reading when that distinction is made.

 

There is no ambiguity in pronunciation or meaning when furtive patach is shown just like a normal patach.

 

I.e. there is no case in which an experienced reader would confuse a furtive patach for a normal patach or vice versa, and the rules for the whether a patach is furtive or not are pretty simple and 100% agreed upon AFAIK. I.e. you don't have to be that experienced to not need it. But even for those who don't need it, it can still be nice.

 

Contrast, for example, with the rather complex and not-100%-agreed upon rules for when a qamats is qatan and when a sheva is na vs. when it is nach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...