pataḥ vs qamats in L in Gen 1:9 השמים

[Ben Denckla]

@99asteroids wrote (in an accentual difference between the ETCBC [...]😞

Quote

Verse 9.

That's a qamets under the shin, but all the editions have a patach. Maybe they're taking the liberty to correct L's spelling.

 

I'm guessing you meant to say under the mem not the shin, since a qamats under the mem would be unexpected whereas the qamats under the shin is expected.

 

I agree that a diplomatic edition should probably transcribe this word as הַשָּׁמָ֙יִם֙. Regardless of how it is transcribed, this issue should be noted.

 

Qamats would be expected under mem only in pausal form, i.e. only if the accent were atnaḥ or silluq. Whereas here the accent is pashta, making a qamats under mem unexpected.

 

(As an aside, it occurs to me that I don't know whether the poetic-only accent (pair) oleh veyored "gets" pausal form. In most ways it is at least as strong an accent as atnaḥ. But of course here we are in Genesis, which of course uses the prose cantillation system.)

 

 

[99asteroids]

Yes, shin was a scribal error on my part and I'm glad you corrected it, Dotan style.