# Biblical Hebrew: When does pretonic reduction occur?



## bl4zE_WADEEEE

Howdy!

Why does the pretonic vowel in דְּבָרִים and מִשְׁפָּטִים not reduce? The same vowel reduces in מַחְשְׁבֹת which means thoughts.

”וַיַּרְא יְהֹוָה כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וְכָל-יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבֹת לִבּוֹ רַק רַע כָּל-הַיּוֹם“ (בראשית ו, פסוק ה)

Regards
bl4zE_WADEEEE


----------



## Drink

Pretonic "a" does not normally get reduced.


----------



## Ali Smith

You're right. And the reason why it got reduced in the verse quoted by the OP is because it became propretonic because the word is in the construct state. The same would happen to מִשְׁפָּטִים if _it _were in the construct state.


----------



## Drink

Right. The rule is that construct states are treated as though an imaginary syllable following the last one is stressed.


----------



## JAN SHAR

Why does it occur in שמי "my name" but not in שמות "names"?


----------



## Drink

You could also add בני to that question.

I have toyed with the theory that perhaps in proto-Hebrew, these singulars had a consonant cluster instead of a vowel, while the plurals had a vowel.

But really, I'm not sure there is an accepted answer to this.


----------



## Ali Smith

It cannot be put quite that simply: a vowel was inserted early (/u/ in Akkadian and other ancient Mesopotamian languages and in Aramaic, as well as, apparently, in Ugaritic, /i/ in Hebrew) so, at least for Hebrew, we have to deal with a proto-Hebrew form /šim-/—I have no explanation for the variations across languages from very ancient with a vowel to relatively young languages (like Arabic—at least in attestations and in typology) with Ø-vowel—does Testen, in his original study try to solve that problem?

בני is quite different, for it has a vowel in both the singular absolute and the plural absolute.


----------



## Drink

Ali Smith said:


> בני is quite different, for it has a vowel in both the singular absolute and the plural absolute.


1) How does that make it different from שמי?
2) The plural is irrelevant anyway, since it uses a different stem. Clearly I'm only talking about the singular.


----------



## zj73

Hi

I'm new to Hebrew. I wanted to ask a question.

When you say  elders of the city  why do you say זִקְנֵי הָעִיר but when you say  my elders  you say זְקֵנַי  Why is there this difference in vowels?


----------



## Drink

So first let's look at the vowels of the base plural form: זְקֵנִים. Note the location of the stressed syllable; the stressed syllable is one syllable after the stem.

Most of the possessed forms are likewise stressed one syllable after the stem: e.g. זְקֵנָיו, זְקֵנֶיךָ. These have the same vowels as the base plural form.

Now look at the other possessed forms: זִקְנֵיהֶם, זִקְנֵיכֶם. Here, the stress is two syllables after the stem. Whenever you have a shift in stress, the vowels may change.

Now with זִקְנֵי העיר, what's happening is that this is the construct form, which is possessed by a following noun. Is vowels are treated _as if_ the stress were on an imaginary syllable following the word (i.e. _as though_ the stress is on the following word). This places the stress two syllables after the stem, and so you get the same vowels as with זִקְנֵיהֶם and זִקְנֵיכֶם. This is the case even though in reality זקני may be stressed on its last syllable.


----------



## 𒍝𒊑𒈾 𒂵𒉿𒀉

Why doesn't the aa in ktaav david reduce in והכונו וְהָכִ֥ינוּ לְבֵית־אֲבוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם כְּמַחְלְקוֹתֵיכֶ֑ם בִּכְתָ֗ב דָּוִיד֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וּבְמִכְתַּ֖ב שְׁלֹמֹ֥ה בְנֽוֹ׃


----------



## aavichai

In this case. for two different reasons:
1. A Qamats ("aa") is reduced in an open syllable (and here, it is closed).

2. A Qamats that is reduced is a Qamats that was evolved from a short vowel ('a'). And in this case, this Qamats was evolved from a long vowel.
Usually, in Hebrew, a long "a" becomes an "o" (Canaanite shift), But this word כתב and its form was "loaned" from Aramaic that preserves that Qamats as it is, and so Hebrew "took" it as it is.
(notice that this word starts to be seen only in the late biblical books).


----------



## Ali Smith

Actually, the rule is that closed syllables can only have a short vowel. The only exception is when the closed syllable is stressed, which is not the case here. So, the first reason seems to be incorrect.


----------



## aavichai

So how the first reason seems to be incorrect?
The question was about the Qamats not being reduced. The simple answer is that reduction happens in an open syllable (and here it is closed).
So the first reason talks about the terms of this vowel reduction process.

And so, the real question should be why the Qamats doesn't turn into Patah' in this case, And so I added the second reason to expalin that.


----------

