1

In BHS, and in many fonts, a ḥolam ḥaser dot floats forward onto the upper right of alef if that alef is not functioning as a consonant. Probably one of the most common cases of this is vayomer. E.g., right off the bat in Gen 1:3:

vayomer in pointed Hebrew

I cover this behavior more deeply in my documentation for my Taamey D font, but I think you get the idea.

My question is, does anyone know of a source (or authority) for doing this? (I.e., what's a source other than BHS and the fonts that mimic it.) Do other printed editions do this? None in my small collection do. Perhaps more importantly, are the great medieval manuscripts (L, A, etc.) thought to do this? When I look at L, for example, it seems it does this, but maybe I'm just seeing what I want to see. It is a little hard to tell which letter the dot belongs to, because, fundamentally I think, it belongs to neither: it belongs somewhere in between. I guess the question is: is its position, on average, "later," when it appears between some consonant and a non-consonant alef? And if it is, on average, "later," is it fair to assume this was scribal intention and not chance?

Also, what are the pros and cons of interpreting this not as a "late" ḥolam ḥaser dot but as a ḥolam male dot on alef? I.e., are there at least some circumstances in which instead of interpreting this dot as implying a "missing" vav, it is better to interpret this dot as qualifying what kind of alef we're looking at, just as a ḥolam male dot qualifies what kind of a vav we're looking at?

bfd
  • 139
  • 5
  • On what basis does it belong in between? – magicker72 Mar 23 '23 at 23:46
  • The general rule in Tanakh is a letter is only pronounced if it has a vowel mark so here we'd expect the yud to be marked and the alef to be "blank". – Double AA Mar 24 '23 at 00:03
  • @DoubleAA The reason for my question is that the convention of BHS and many fonts is to defy your expectation, and I'm wondering if anyone knows where that convention comes from. – bfd Mar 24 '23 at 12:11
  • @DoubleAA I know all rules have exceptions, but your rule neglects a big set of cases relevant to my question, which are the vav vowels: shuruq and vav ḥolam. As I'm sure you know, if there's a consonant before a vav vowel, that consonant will be unmarked (except perhaps for a trope mark). That's relevant to the second part of my question, about the possibility of interpreting this dot more like a ḥolam male dot on a vav. – bfd Mar 24 '23 at 12:12
  • @bfd Those consonants are marked by the vowel-vav following it. – Double AA Mar 24 '23 at 12:12
  • @magicker72 The basis for my claim that, in the L manuscript, the dot belongs in between the two letters is twofold. One, that's what I think I'm seeing, on average. Two, that corresponds to the interpretation of all ḥolam ḥaser dots as belonging to a "missing" vav that "should be" in between the two letters. This interprets a ḥolam ḥaser dot as being a bit similar to the orphan ḥiriq or sheva in most Jerusalem-related words! – bfd Mar 24 '23 at 12:18
  • @DoubleAA Okay then the 2nd part of my question is about the possibility of interpreting the yod as being marked by the vowel-alef following it, just as a yod might, in other words, be followed by a vowel-vav. – bfd Mar 24 '23 at 12:21
  • @bfd Yes, I think that's a really cool suggestion. I only looked briefly at one page of Aleppo yesterday to find examples of this and didn't see a consistant pattern along the lines of what you are suggestion. But it was hardly a conclusive search. – Double AA Mar 24 '23 at 12:28
  • @bfd For your number two, I wonder whether there are any cases with a non-consonantal א with a preceding o-vowel that's not etymologically an o-vowel (like עֹז is a u-vowel, as seen in עֻזו). Such a case wouldn't have a "missing vav", and you might compare how that's written. – magicker72 Mar 24 '23 at 15:15
  • It's just a font. Don't overthink it. – N.T. Mar 26 '23 at 03:29

0 Answers0