tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post5763135399446582426..comments2008-12-15T23:49:52.497-05:00Shtiklerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498936768989355610noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-72937755265438853522009-03-05T14:27:00.000-05:002009-03-05T14:27:00.000-05:00טעיתי מקודם מלך בעבר הוא מלרע כמובן <BR/>אינני יודע איך מתקנים.ELIEnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-20140949039893797852009-03-05T14:23:00.000-05:002009-03-05T14:23:00.000-05:00נכון לפי התימנים עד היום קוראים "מלך" כאילו כתוב בשני פתחין MALAKH<BR/> ואם יהיה שם קמץ יקראו מלך כמו צורת עבר מָלַךְ אלא שמלך בעבר הוא מלעיל. עם זאת קשה לי לקבל את זה<BR/>גם ההסבר על מי כָּמוכה שהזכרת אינני מקבל רק כפרפרתELIEnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-27498546251367585302009-03-02T22:41:00.000-05:002009-03-02T22:41:00.000-05:00sorry i wasn't clear. i didn't intend to draw any parallels between תבן and מלך. i only mentioned מלך as an afterthought because it was mentioned in one of the other comments as another exception. according to fasssberg (iirc), in tiberian pronounciation there could have been confusion between the pausal form of מלך and the pagan diety. (think of this as an academic drush that parallels the traditional explanation for mi kamokha vs. mi khamokha in az yashir).<BR/><BR/>as far as תבן: iirc, nouns that derive from a qatl form have pausal forms with the kamatz (e.g., gefen, delet, kesef, etc.). nouns that derive from a qitl form may have the kamatz (e.g., beged, beten, etc.) or may not (e.g., tzedek, kerev, etc.). <BR/><BR/>according to fassberg, תבן derives from a qitl form and thus one should not necessarily expect a kamatz in pausal form. (with תבן, though, there is no direct evidence from hebrew itself that it is from qitl).<BR/><BR/>kol tuvLion of Zionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10342299133387602141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-23172586723297708462009-03-02T22:39:00.000-05:002009-03-02T22:39:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lion of Zionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10342299133387602141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-19809614858248153902009-03-01T01:46:00.000-05:002009-03-01T01:46:00.000-05:00אינני יכול לקבל את ההסבר של<BR/>תֹבן תי"ו בחולם או מולך מ' בחולם <BR/>יותר טוב בלי הסבר כללELIEnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-59918233066717968012009-03-01T00:12:00.000-05:002009-03-01T00:12:00.000-05:00a lot of the so-called exceptions when we ordinarily expect a pausal form are due to the underlying forms of the words (e.g., qitl vs. qatl).<BR/><BR/>in the case of מלך, one suggestion is that there is no malekh (or rather molekh) because of confusion with the pagan diety. see Steven E. Fassberg, מדוע אין מוציאים מלך בהפסק במסורת טבריה למקרא in לשוננו, vol. 64 [2002].<BR/><BR/>In general on pausal forms, see Israel Ben-David, צורות הקשר וצורות הפסק בעברית שבמקרא [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995]<BR/><BR/>שבוע טובLion of Zionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10342299133387602141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-65812690787853124732008-01-31T17:31:00.000-05:002008-01-31T17:31:00.000-05:00You are right:<BR/><BR/>on a different note, can you explain me please the Gaon's opinion that after a melupum (shuruk) vav in the beginning of a word, the shva following it will be a nach, and even though the letters afterwards (beged kefes) will be without a dagesh? And why is u'veshachbecha an exception to that? <BR/><BR/>Is the following the correct answer? Every Shuruk in the beginning of a word is really a kubutz under an invisible nonexistent letter before the word. Since there is no way to write it other than the vav/shuruk, it is really a kubutz that just looks like a shuruk.<BR/> <BR/>ThanksAvromihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13593992238707872967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-26557274959134403942008-01-31T17:07:00.000-05:002008-01-31T17:07:00.000-05:00no coparison<BR/>אינו דומה כלל<BR/>המילה אֲמת האל"ף מנוקדת בחטף סגול שהיא כמו שוא <BR/>ואין היא משתנה בנטיה לקמץAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-38076602360120656162008-01-31T16:40:00.000-05:002008-01-31T16:40:00.000-05:00emes as wellAvromihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13593992238707872967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1866132022161856151.post-8569668670298588002008-01-02T03:16:00.000-05:002008-01-02T03:16:00.000-05:00יש מילים כמו נדר <BR/>תבן <BR/>מלך<BR/>ועוד שאינם נהיים קמץ בסוף פסוק.eliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16527481325757011674noreply@blogger.com