Furtive Patah

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: avi
         

Interestingly, all of these instances do indeed have the mappiq in the MT as represented by the aleppo codex  (for the Deut. ref, by the way, I assume you meant 32:15). 

In the BHS, variants with the mappiq are cited for all of these in the apparatus. And the HUBibleProject, which starts with the Aleppo codex as its base texts, cites non-mappiq versions as variants in other MTs. For instance, regarding the citation from Is. 2:15, while the aleppo has the mappiq, the Leningrad, generally considered to be quite a good text, does not have the mappiq.

Thus, we can conclude that in order to support the full arrray of existing MT's, we will need to support furtive patah on non-mappiq heh as well. Nevertheless, at the same time, I would qualify Aaron's statement "the Massoretes were somewhat inconsistent in the marking of mappiq" by stating that while some massoretes were inconsistent, the scribe of the Aleppo codex does appear to have indeed been consistent in this area.

 

- Avi

 

         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Peter Kirk
         
On 21/04/2004 11:18, avi wrote:

>
>
>
>     ...
>      
>     > a Biblical citation for a final heh without mappiq with furtive
>     patach,
>     > i.e. an example of this masoretic inconsistency?
>      
>     A search over Bar Ilan University's reconstructed Masoretic Text
>     according to the Aleppo Codex shows that all 89 instances of
>     futive patah on the heh occur with mappiq. However, it is not out
>     of the question that other Masoretic Texts would disagree on some
>     of the mappiq's.
>      
>     In any case, futive patah on the heh is very infrequent, compared
>     with that of the other two letters - I find 1125 instances on the
>     khet, and 1473 on the ayin, compared with the 89 on the heh. (And
>     interstingly, of the latter, nearly half are found in the book of
>     Job - in which the word "e-lo-a" is predominant).
>      
>     - Avi Shmidman
>      
>      
>      
>
>
>    
>
In the Westminster text based on the Leningrad Codex, I found 17 cases
of he with furtive patah but no mappiq, at the following references: DEU
32:15,17; JOB 4:9,17; 11:6,7; 15:8; 16:20; 33:12; ISA 2:15; 13:10;
30:25; 40:9; JER 49:16; EZK 17:22,24; 21:31. This list may not be
exhaustive. So patah under word final he should be taken as furtive
whether or not there is a mappiq.

--
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/


         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Aaron0327
         

Dear Avi,

 

Thanks for the clarification.  I had a doubt
about the heh with mappiq in other Massoretic texts and you are absolutely
correct in regards to the consistency in Aleppo.  You were also right that
I meant Deut 32:15, 17 instead of 31:15, 17).

 

Aaron

----- Original Message -----

From:
avi

To: SBL Fonts

Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:05
  PM

Subject: Re: Furtive Patah

	New Message on SBL Fonts

Furtive
    Patah

Reply

Reply to Sender   Recommend Message 16 in                 Discussion

From: avi Interestingly, all of these instances do                 indeed have the mappiq in the MT as represented by the aleppo                 codex  (for the Deut. ref, by the way, I assume you meant                 32:15).  In the BHS, variants with the mappiq are cited for all of                 these in the apparatus. And the HUBibleProject, which starts                 with the Aleppo codex as its base texts, cites non-mappiq                 versions as variants in other MTs. For instance, regarding the                 citation from Is. 2:15, while the aleppo has the mappiq, the                 Leningrad, generally considered to be quite a good text, does                 not have the mappiq. Thus, we can conclude that in order to support the full                 arrray of existing MT's, we will need to support furtive patah                 on non-mappiq heh as well. Nevertheless, at the same time, I                 would qualify Aaron's statement "the Massoretes were somewhat                 inconsistent in the marking of mappiq" by stating that while                 some massoretes were inconsistent, the scribe of the Aleppo                 codex does appear to have indeed been consistent in this                 area.   - Avi

View other groups in this
    category.

         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: twuandy
         
I checked the various Tanachs sheli and found that most shift the furtive,
but the one I use the most (jerusalem 1988 îæå"á) doesn't.  Neither does the
tanach issued by David Ginsburg (with critical apparatus) and now
distributed by the The Society for Distributing Hebrew scriptures.  Koren
shifts as does my tanach published for use by soldiers in IDF (the army)
with exegetical notes.  And, of course, BHS does.
TWUAndy

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: John Hudson
         

Thank you all for your diligent digging. My current intent is to include contextual lookups to shift the furtive patach in the next version of the font, as this seems to be the most common rendering. I'm not sure that it will be possible to come up with a method to disable this; I'm loathe to invent non-standard uses for control characters, and in any case they can be unreliable across applications.

 

Avi, I am planning, once the SBL Hebrew font is released in November, to also release a version of the same design as a retail font with modifications for modern Hebrew use. These will include 'normal' positioning of patach on these final gutterals, and placement of the holam further to the left, in accord with the dominant Israeli typographic style. This font will not contain Biblical accent marks. Do you think such a font would suit your needs for the poetic and liturgical texts from the Cairo Genizah?

         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: John Hudson
         

Aaron wrote: here are a few of the 20 (?) that I have found:  the word 'eloah in Deut 31:15, [7]; gavoah Isa 2:15; yagiah Isa 13:10.

 

Thanks. I have checked these in the JPS Tanakh and note that they occur without mappiq, so my contextual lookups will include final heh with and without mappiq.

 

One final question, and my apologies if this is a stupid one -- I'm learning a lot about Hebrew palaeography but little about the language --: would a final gutteral with furtive patah ever also have a meteg?

         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: avi
         

> would a final gutteral with furtive patah ever also have a meteg?

 

Sure. See, for instance, Gen. 3:18, third word. Such in the Leningrad and in the BHS. [And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the ending guttural may also have certain cantillation marks, such as pashta, segol, zarqa, telisha.  Note, though, that all of these are the type which appear above the letter, thus posing no problem of interference with your shifted patah.]

 

> Avi, I am planning, once the SBL Hebrew font is released in November, to also release a

> version of the same design as a retail font with modifications for modern Hebrew use...

 

This does sound very appropriate. As you correctly assume, I do not need use of accent marks. A few items which I will need follow below - will the 'modern' version of the font support these:

 

1] To be able to duplicate the vocalization oddities of words as they are in the Bible (i.e., the double vowel on 'Yerushalyim'; an occasional dagesh in an aleph or a resh)

2] To be able to form the vuv-holam combination both as a "holam maleh" as well as a "vuv haluma" (as Peter Kirk explains in his recent Unicode position paper)

3] To be able to place an "upper dot" on top of any letter (in medieval mss, this is often used to indicate abbreviations)

 

 

 

         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: avi
         

Dear John,

 

In my previous post, I addressed the issue of a meteg with a final patah; however, I realized that your question was probably of a wider scope, regarding extreme circumstances in which the final patah might occur.

I haven't done a full examination yet, but here are a few notable instances which we should take into account:

 

1] Gen 1:2, 9th word. This is the normal case of futive patah on final het. The patah in the BHS is shifted over quite far, such that the majority of it is to the right of the right leg of the het.

 

2] Gen 8:20, 3rd word (mizbeakh). As with case (1), this word exibits the furtive patah on the final het. However, here, beneath the previous letter, appear both an accent (tipcha) as well as a nikkud mark (tzeireh). Thus, the final patah cannot be shifted over too much, since it would interefere with the marks on the previous letter. And, indeed, the BHS shifts it much less, such that the majority is still to the left of the right leg of the het.

 

3] Gen 33:20, 3rd word. Again, furtive patah on final het. However, here the previous letter has both a tzeireh , as well as a broader accent (etnakhta). The crowding here is so great that the etnakhta is already taking up part of the het's space. And thus, in the BHS, in order to allow the furtive patah to be shifted over, an artificial space in introduced between the het and the letter beforehand.

 

- Avi

 

         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: twuandy
         
John,
And don't forget the Gothic letters used in BHS. We need two different
capital A's (one  designates the Arabic version, one the Armenian*) , B for
Boharic* , two C's (one for Sahidic Coptic*, one for Cairo Geniza), G or
Septuagint, K for Coptic (Germans spell "Coptic" "Koptisch"), L (Old Latin),
M (Masoretic text), P (Palestinian Aramaic*) Q (Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran),
two S's (Syriac Peshitta and Syrohexaplar*), T (Targum), V (Vulgate).  The
ones marked with * are those used by Alan Brooke-Norman McLean in The Old
Testament in Greek, the Cambridge critical edition of Codex Vaticanus.  Note
that BHS uses two capital A's that are almost identical, one for Arabic and
one for Ethiopic (Germans spell "Ethiopic" "Aethiopisch").  Before you do
all the work, verify that BHS Quinta are using the same sigla as BHS (the
two A's just mentioned is ridiculous, as is the fact that they were left
without a siglum for Armenian, so they had to write "Arm"),  Furthermore B
for BHS is not "Boharic" but rather "Bomberg", the rabbinic Bible from 1525.
  For the articles I do I'm using a hodge podge of the 14 free oldGerman
Gothic fonts downloadable gratis from the web. I pick and choose from the
fonts (mostly using Schwaben but also Black Forest and Gothenberg) the ones
that are most similar to the BHS font.  If you need my handwritten chart
roughly showing the different styles tell me (but it doesn't come through
very clearly faxed).
TWUAndy

_________________________________________________________________
Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN
Premium!
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/


         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: John Hudson
         

I believe this discussion needs to be split into at least two new threads, so have answered Avi's question about the proposed non-Biblical font HERE, and TWUAndy's question about textual apparatus characters HERE.

 

Please try to keep questions within a thread on topic and, if introducing a new topic, please start a new discussion. This will help ensure that the community site is will organised and useful to those who follow in our footsteps. Thanks.

         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: avi
         

Just to sum up regarding the discussion of mappiq and the furtive patah.

 

A mappiq in a heh is a masoretic sign indicating that the letter is a real part of the word, and not simply a vowel ('eim kriah').  By definition, any time a heh has a patah attached to it, the heh is no longer serving as simply a vowel; thus, anytime we find a patah attached to a heh, it is clear that the heh is an inherent part of the word, deserving of a mappiq.  And indeed, such is the case in the cases we discussed - in the word "e-lo-a" (singular of elo-him), the heh is part of the word stem; and similarly, in the cases in Isaiah, the words involve a stem of "g-b-h", in which the heh is the third letter of the stem.

All of these cases of heh-with-furtive-patah thus deserve the mappiq, and, in the Aleppo Codex, they receive their mappiq correctly. However, as Aaron noted, many other Masoretic scribes were not careful about these mappiqs, and left them out from time to time.

A possible explanation of this phenomena, however, is the point with which we started here - that if the heh contains a patah, it is quite obviously not just serving as a vowel.  It may well be that these Masoretic scribes felt that the mappiq in a heh with a furtive patah is simply superfluous; the patah itself is enough of an indication of the heh's status, and, therefore, the mappiq is unnecessary.

Thus, in all of these cases, although grammatically it would seem that a furtive patah on a heh will always be accompanied by a mappiq, the practical side of scribal practices created the reality in which a furtive patah on a non-mappiq heh was a logical possibility.

 

- Avi

 

         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Aaron0327
         

Well said!

Aaron

----- Original Message -----

From:
avi

To: SBL Fonts

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 9:29
PM

Subject: Re: Furtive Patah

	New Message on SBL Fonts

Furtive
    Patah

Reply

Reply to Sender   Recommend Message 26 in                 Discussion

From: avi Just to sum up regarding the discussion of mappiq and the                 furtive patah.   A mappiq in a heh is a masoretic sign indicating that the                 letter is a real part of the word, and not simply a vowel ('eim                 kriah').  By definition, any time a heh has a patah                 attached to it, the heh is no longer serving as                 simply a vowel; thus, anytime we find a patah attached to a                 heh, it is clear that the heh is an inherent part of the word,                 deserving of a mappiq.  And indeed, such is the case in the                 cases we discussed - in the word "e-lo-a" (singular of elo-him),                 the heh is part of the word stem; and similarly, in the cases in                 Isaiah, the words involve a stem of "g-b-h", in which the heh is                 the third letter of the stem. All of these cases of heh-with-furtive-patah thus deserve                 the mappiq, and, in the Aleppo Codex, they receive their mappiq                 correctly. However, as Aaron noted, many other Masoretic scribes                 were not careful about these mappiqs, and left them out from                 time to time. A possible explanation of this phenomena, however, is the                 point with which we started here - that if the heh contains a                 patah, it is quite obviously not just serving as a vowel.                  It may well be that these Masoretic scribes felt that                 the mappiq in a heh with a furtive patah is simply                 superfluous; the patah itself is enough of an indication of the                 heh's status, and, therefore, the mappiq is unnecessary. Thus, in all of these cases, although grammatically it                 would seem that a furtive patah on a heh will always be                 accompanied by a mappiq, the practical side of scribal practices                 created the reality in which a furtive patah on a non-mappiq heh                 was a logical possibility.   - Avi

View other groups in this
    category.

         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: twuandy
         
I'm working with mut in the hifil, and all the relevant cases with third
person suffix feminine singular have he + patah without mappiq.
Andy

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/


         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: twuandy
         
Sorry, Aaron and Avi.  I confused the qames under the he with patah.  In
looking around in Ginsburg's 4 volume The Masora Compiled from Manuscripts I
spotted a note on the mappiq with he, but when I got the volumes upstairs to
work on them I couldn't find it.
TWUAndy


>From: "twuandy"
>Reply-To: "SBL Fonts"
>To: SBLFonts@groups.msn.com
>Subject: Re: Furtive Patah
>Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:22:46 -0700
>

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE
download! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/

         

[ArchivePoster]

Posted by: Aaron0327
         

Dear Andy,

Thank you for clarifying.  I was puzzled by
your previous message.  If you do find something, please do share. 
For example, I am wondering about the mappiq in the heh of the feminine singular
suffix pronoun.  I know there are several examples in the Leningrad Codex
where the mappiq is lacking.  I am wondering if it is also lacking in
Aleppo.

Aaron

----- Original Message -----

From:
twuandy

To: SBLFonts@groups.msn.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:52
  AM

Subject: Re: Furtive Patah

	New Message on SBL Fonts

Furtive
    Patah

Reply

Reply to Sender   Recommend Message 29 in                 Discussion

From: twuandy Sorry, Aaron and Avi. I confused the                 qames under the he with patah. In looking around in                 Ginsburg's 4 volume The Masora Compiled from Manuscripts I                 spotted a note on the mappiq with he, but when I got the                 volumes upstairs to work on them I couldn't find                 it. TWUAndy >From: "twuandy"                 >Reply-To: "SBL Fonts"                 >To:                 SBLFonts@groups.msn.com >Subject: Re: Furtive                 Patah >Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:22:46                 -0700 > _________________________________________________________________ MSN                 Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page –                 FREE download!                 http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/

View other groups in this
    category.

         

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- News and announcements ----------------------------- => Announcements from the forum’s moderators => News from the font industry ----------------------------- Type design and font technology ----------------------------- => Principles of type design => OpenType Layout feature development => Hinting => Font Formats and OpenType => Web font embedding => Font licensing ===> Electronic EULA Abstract (EEULAA) ----------------------------- Education and collaboration ----------------------------- => Work: Offers => Work: Looking for => Education: Offers => Education: Looking for => Typographic Events and Conferences ----------------------------- FontLab products ----------------------------- => News from FontLab => FontLab Studio ===> FontLab Studio Problems ===> FontLab Studio Tips and Tricks ===> FontLab Studio Wish List ===> FontLab Studio Public Preview => Fontographer ===> Fontographer Problems ===> Fontographer Wish List => TypeTool => AsiaFont Studio => TransType => ScanFont => SigMaker => Other Products ----------------------------- Photofont products ----------------------------- => BitFonter => Photofont WebReady => Photofont Start => Photofont ID => Photofont QX => The Photofont technology ----------------------------- Adobe Type products ----------------------------- => Adobe FDK for OpenType (AFDKO) ----------------------------- Apple Font products ----------------------------- => Apple Font Tools ----------------------------- Microsoft Typography products ----------------------------- => Microsoft Font Validator => Microsoft Visual OpenType Layout Tool (VOLT) => Microsoft Web Embedding Fonts Tool (WEFT) => Microsoft Visual TrueType (VTT) ----------------------------- Other products and Python scripting ----------------------------- => Python scripting => FontTools/TTX => Other font-related tools ----------------------------- Special interest groups ----------------------------- => SBL Fonts ===> SBL Hebrew ===> SBL Greek ===> SBL BibLit ----------------------------- FAQ and TechNotes ----------------------------- => OpenType Layout feature development FAQ and TechNotes => Hinting FAQ and TechNotes => Font Formats and OpenType FAQ and TechNotes => Web font embedding FAQ and TechNotes => Font licensing FAQ and TechNotes => FontLab Studio FAQ and TechNotes => Fontographer FAQ and TechNotes => TypeTool FAQ and TechNotes => AsiaFont Studio FAQ and TechNotes => TransType FAQ and TechNotes => ScanFont FAQ and TechNotes => SigMaker FAQ and TechNotes => BitFonter FAQ and TechNotes => Photofont WebReady FAQ and TechNotes => Photofont Start FAQ and TechNotes => Photofont ID FAQ and TechNotes => Photofont QX FAQ and TechNotes ----------------------------- Archive (MSN Groups) ----------------------------- => Archive: Old FontLab forum ===> Archive: FontLab Tips and Tricks ===> Archive: FontLab Bugs and Problems ===> Archive: FontLab Wish List ===> Archive: FontLab Announcements => Archive: Old Microsoft Font Validator group => Archive: Old Microsoft VOLT group => Archive: Old Microsoft VTT group ===> Archive: VTT Downloads ===> Archive: VTT Support ===> Archive: VTT Suggestions => Archive: Old Microsoft WEFT group ===> Archive: WEFT III ===> Archive: EOT for Email => Archive: Old SBL Fonts group ===> Archive: SBL Hebrew ===> Archive: SBL Greek ----------------------------- Various ----------------------------- => fontlab.com — the FontLab website => forum.fontlab.com — this forum => Other Topics