# Why is a shva always written under ך?



## Drink

Why is a shva always written under (vowel-less) ך? I personally have always had three theories:

1. To make it extra clear that there no qamatz.
2. To aesthetically fill up the large empty space.
3. To "correct" a possible earlier chiriq under the 2fs suffix (which then spread to regular words like דֶּרֶךְ).

Another thing that has always struck me is the similarity to the Arabic final ك, which includes a seemingly unnecessary squiggle in the middle.

Any thoughts?


----------



## ystab

I'd go with theory no. 1.

Let's think of the consonants that have Niqqud at the end of a word:
- Tav - Relevant only for past tense verbs
- Heh - Marked by Mapiq
- Kaf - Can be used in possessive and object suffixes, thus it can appear with Niqqud in both nouns and verbs.


----------



## MuttQuad

ystab said:


> I'd go with theory no. 1.
> 
> Let's think of the consonants that have Niqqud at the end of a word:
> - Tav - Relevant only for past tense verbs
> - Heh - Marked by Mapiq
> - Kaf - Can be used in possessive and object suffixes, thus it can appear with Niqqud in both nouns and verbs.



Would you include Chet, as in "luach" or "sameach"?


----------



## ystab

MuttQuad said:


> Would you include Chet, as in "luach" or "sameach"?



No. Patah Gnuva comes before the guttural consonant, and in proper printing it appears slightly before, rather than exactly under, the letter.


----------



## MuttQuad

ystab said:


> No. Patah Gnuva comes before the guttural consonant, and in proper printing it appears slightly before, rather than exactly under, the letter.



Have never noticed that, even when my company was the major privately owned American producer of advertising typography in Hebrew. Must be a relatively recent Israeli practice. I know our equipment didn't produce that effect, and we had the first computerized Hebrew phototypesetting machine in the world.

Interesting to learn of the subtle changes as Israel and its graphic arts industry have become more sophisticated.


----------



## origumi

MuttQuad said:


> ... Must be a relatively recent Israeli practice... Interesting to learn of the subtle changes as Israel and its graphic arts industry have become more sophisticated.


This is incorrect.


----------



## MuttQuad

origumi said:


> This is incorrect.



I've checked back, and you're right. Now I know something new in a field in which I have long been considered expert. I thank you for correcting me. On the other hand, though, the computerized phototypesetting machines to which we first graduated as the era of hot-metal typography was dying out, did not then have the capability to place nikkud anywhere off-center beneath a character -- even the one-legged characters such as daled and resh.


----------



## Drink

Placing patach gnuva slightly before the letter is still a relatively modern thing. The Leningrad Codex, for example, does not do this. Here is an example of the word "הַמִּזְבֵּחַ": 
. On the other hand, it has "לָרָקִיעַ" as "לָרָקִיַע":  (i.e. with the patach under the yod).


----------



## origumi

Drink said:


> Placing patach gnuva slightly before the letter is still a relatively modern thing.


כתר ארם צובא (the Aleppo Codex) is old enough for me.


----------



## origumi

Back to the thread's topic: I don't know the answer, my two cents is that there are three systematic cases in which the שוא appears at end of word:
1. ך סופית
2. אות דגושה
3. שני שואים רצוופים (relatively rare case)

See for example וְאַתְּ נָתַתְּ אֶת נְדָנַיִךְ (for #1 and #2). לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ קֹשְׁטְ אִמְרֵי אֱמֶת (for #3).


----------



## Drink

origumi said:


> כתר ארם צובא (the Aleppo Codex) is old enough for me.



You're right. I didn't realize the Aleppo Codex did that. Since the Leningrad and Aleppo Codices are relatively close in age, I don't think we can say that either of their methods is more "proper".


----------



## Drink

origumi said:


> Back to the thread's topic: I don't know the answer, my two cents is that there are three systematic cases in which the שוא appears at end of word:
> 1. ך סופית
> 2. אות דגושה
> 3. שני שואים רצוופים (relatively rare case)
> 
> See for example וְאַתְּ נָתַתְּ אֶת נְדָנַיִךְ (for #1 and #2). לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ קֹשְׁטְ אִמְרֵי אֱמֶת (for #3).



#2 and #3 make perfect sense to me (in fact I view them as one case). It's just #1 that has always bothered me.


----------



## MuttQuad

See for example וְאַתְּ נָתַתְּ אֶת נְדָנַיִךְ (for #1 and #2). לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ קֹשְׁטְ אִמְרֵי אֱמֶת (for #3).

The example above, provided by Origumi in Post #10 demonstrates what I meant about the early computerized Hebrew phototypesetting. Note how the nikkud are so frequently misplaced -- with unfortunate optical effect. This was due to the early equipment's inability to control the placement of nikkud properly and optimally esthetically.

As far as I can see in the present example, all of the peculiarly placed vowel signs are the result of the typesetting system's limitations -- with one exception that seems to be an operator error. That is the yod in the last word, which has a dot immediately beneath it rather than below the type's baseline. He or she probably just keystroked it incorrectly. 

Pretty ugly stuff, but in the formerly universally-used hot-metal typesetting systems, I think only the Monotype was capable of controlling the placement of the nikkud efficiently. I don't recall that we were able to do it with linecasters such as the Linotype.


----------



## origumi

MuttQuad said:


> As far as I can see in the present example, all of the peculiarly placed vowel signs are the result of the typesetting system's limitations -- with one exception that seems to be an operator error. That is the yod in the last word, which has a dot immediately beneath it rather than below the type's baseline. He or she probably just keystroked it incorrectly.
> 
> Pretty ugly stuff, but in the formerly universally-used hot-metal typesetting systems, I think only the Monotype was capable of controlling the placement of the nikkud efficiently. I don't recall that we were able to do it with linecasters such as the Linotype.


There's a problem with the Hebrew font in the WordReference site I guess, the text was copied from http://sparks.simania.co.il where the chiriq appears in the correct location.

In computers there's no technical issue putting niqqud anywhere with the letter, it's a matter of preparing fonts. There seems to be a problem placing niqqud between letters. Therefore it's unlikely to see  פתח גנוב in the location @ystab mentioned above and appears in the Aleppo Codex (hand-written not too much time after the "Tiberian" niqqud was invented). This is also the case with old typewriting machines and antique printing equipment, maybe since Gutenberg.

In Israeli schools, books, media (when adding niqqud for whatever reason), the פתח גנוב is written always under the letter, not between letters.


----------

