Transliteration of “‎אָכָֽלְתָּ” in Gen 3:11

[Ingo]

“‎אָכָֽלְתָּ” Gen. 3:11, BHS-W4 v5.2
Accordance Copy As Transliteration: ʾāḵālto

Shouldn't the transliteration be: ’āḵālətā or even ʾāḵāl^ettā ?

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

@Ken Simpson might have some insight for you on this.

 

I did take a Modern Hebrew class last year, and I was told the Patach can very seldomly surprisingly be an "o" and not an "a". It's rare, but not unheard of.

 

If this turns out to be an issue though, we can report it.

[Kristin]

My 2 cents is that @Ingo is right and this should be reported as an error. 

[Brian K. Mitchell]

 

6 hours ago, Ingo said:

“‎אָכָֽלְתָּ” Gen. 3:11, BHS-W4 v5.2
Accordance Copy As Transliteration: ʾāḵālto

Shouldn't the transliteration be: ’āḵālətā or even ʾāḵāl^ettā ?

In cases of 'shĕwa na' a Kamatz can be read as an "O" sound

In cases of a Dagesh forte/Dagesh ḥazak a kamatz can be read as an "O" sound

Hataf Kamatz and Kamatz Qatan can also be read as an "O" sound

And in some liturgical traditions the Kamatz can be read as an "O" sound or maybe an "O" near sound

 

BUT....

(1) Richter Wolfgang's Biblia Hebraic Transcripta read אָכָֽלְתָּ as, ʾakalta

(2) and you can hear Genesis 3:11 chanted here https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/504847.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en  scroll down under the first verse (Genesis 3:11) until you see the heading/title Full Verse Chanted the clip is 0:26 long. אָכָֽלְתָּ here is chanted as  ʾakalta

(3) AND if you have Accordance's Hebrew Old Testament Audio module (Pub ID:  Hebrew Audio-OT) you can listen to Genesis 3:11 or (Hebrew Audio-OT Verses: A01.GEN.003-11.mp3) and you will find that אָכָֽלְתָּ is read as, ʾakalta

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gary Raynor]

אֲכָל־מִמֶּ֖נּוּ אָכָֽלְתָּ

 

Copy As transliteration.

ʾᵃḵol-mimmennû ʾāḵālto

 

versus screen shot

 

According to the three audio options that I have

ʾᵃḵol-mimmennû ʾāḵālta

 

I listen through the audio annually and find that kamataz is quite frequently pronounced as o but never as "to" when it is the second person masculine ending!.

[Robert Holmstedt]

The accordance transliteration is incorrect, but Ingo is only partially correct. As with many things, the full story is complicated. 

1. Patach NEVER has the value /o/

2. The deviation from the paradigm form, אָכַלְתָּ so that there is a qamets under the Kaf, אָכָלְתָּ, is due to the verb being in pause (with the silluq at the end of the verse). 

3. Much depends on the pronunciation system one uses -- ancient, medieval (Tiberian), or modified modern. In this case, ancient = modern modified.

4a. In ancient/Modified Modern, the pronunciation is simply ʾakhálta. All the vowels have the value /a/, both the paradigm and the pausal forms. 

4b. In this system, the qamets only has /o/ sound in modern modified (= qamets khatuf / qamets qatan) when it is in a closed, unstressed syllable. Since the first qamets in the form is an open syllable, it is /a/. Since the second qamets is in a stressed syllable, it is /a/. Since the final qamets is in an open syllable, it is /a/. ʾa-khál-ta

5. In Tiberian Hebrew, the patakh = /a/, but the qamets always equals /ɔ/, which is a back mid-low rounded vowel (a bit like the sound in English "ought" when said with rounded lips).

 

I hope this helps.

 

 

Edited January 27, 2024 by Robert Holmstedt
typo

[Brian K. Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Robert Holmstedt said:

I hope this helps.

 

As always thanks for chiming in Professor Rober Holmstedt! 

[Ken Simpson]

On 1/27/2024 at 4:36 PM, Dr. Nathan Parker said:

@Ken Simpson might have some insight for you on this.

 

Thanks for your confidence in me @Dr. Nathan Parker but we have had much more erudite comments from @Brian K. Mitchell and @Robert Holmstedt   What a great community!

[Ben Denckla]

On 1/27/2024 at 9:16 AM, Robert Holmstedt said:

...

2. The deviation from the paradigm form, אָכַלְתָּ so that there is a qamets under the Kaf, אָכָלְתָּ, is due to the verb being in pause (with the silluq at the end of the verse). 

...

 

Thanks @Robert Holmstedt for your detailed response.

 

I just wanted to reply to highlight your #2, since it concerns pausal forms, a little-known interaction between the vowel system and the cantillation system. Pausal forms show that vowels and cantillation are really part of one unified system which we could call "the pointing system."

 

In this light, I always cringe a little when I see Biblical software with the "hide accents" feature. I understand the need for this feature. And I can sympathize with the need for this feature. I remember, only a few years ago, when I found the accents to be a distracting impediment to learning Biblical Hebrew. But now the pedant in me cringes a little. (I also cringe a little because I've devoted most of the last few years of my life to producing more accent-accurate editions of the Hebrew Bible! So, it hurts my ego a little to be reminded that for many users, understandably, accents "just get in the way," at least in their early phases of learning!)

[Ben Denckla]

On 1/27/2024 at 9:16 AM, Robert Holmstedt said:

...

4b. In this system, the qamets only has /o/ sound in modern modified (= qamets khatuf / qamets qatan) when it is in a closed, unstressed syllable. ...

...

 

@Robert Holmstedt I also want to reply to highlight your #4b. I want to use the opportunity to make my usual "plug" for editions showing qamats qatan. This includes Koren and Simanim editions, as well as various editions of MAM, including my own "MAM with doc" edition. For example, for the phrase leading up to the word in question we can see (although it is subtle, especially until you get used to it) the "tall qamats" representation of qamats qatan in אֲכׇל־:

 

 

"MAM with doc" even sports a special kind of qamats qatan with a line looking like a small meteg next to it... I won't get too much into what that means unless there is interest, but in short it records cases in which traditions differ with respect to whether the qamats is qatan or normal (gadol).

Edited January 28, 2024 by Benjamin Denckla

[Ken Simpson]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Denckla said:

I won't get too much into what that means unless there is interest

Oh come pn @Benjamin Denckla. That's sort of like asking a football fan if he wants to see the highlights when you just told him the score! Of course we want to know - well, at least I do!

[Ben Denckla]

47 minutes ago, Ken Simpson said:

Oh come pn @Benjamin Denckla. That's sort of like asking a football fan if he wants to see the highlights when you just told him the score! Of course we want to know - well, at least I do!

Sure, here's what I say about it in the documentation for my Taamey D font:

 

MAM records two “qamats variants” of some words. These are words having a qamats that is:

• a qamats qatan, according to theory (abbrev. ד (dalet))
• a normal qamats, according to Sephardic practice (abbrev. ס (samekh))

For example, below are MAM’s two variant pointings of a word [from Gen. 19:34]. The pointings are rendered in both default and upside-down [qamats qatan] Taamey D. The mem whose qamats varies is highlighted. Below I am just showing the “qamats variants” feature of MAM: I am not showing the short meteg feature of Taamey D yet.

Taamey D provides a stylistic set, ss02, in which the glyph for qamats qatan has a short meteg. This allows both variants to be presented on a single word. A qamats qatan with a small meteg represents a qamats that is qatan only in the theoretical variant. Below is our example theoretical variant shown with ss02 selected (in addition to ss01, for ḥataf qamats qatan):

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

@Ken Simpson We sure do!

 

By the way, @Robert Holmstedt is correct. It was Qamets, not Patach. I mixed them up in my post. Brain scrambled them. 🙂 Dr. Holmstedt is excellent.