origin of the words in question (which is of course the surest guide), may depend meanwhile on the following principal rules:—
1. The sign ־ָ[1] is ŏ in a toneless closed syllable, since such a syllable can have only a short vowel (§ 26 o). The above case occurs—
(a) When Šewâ follows as a syllable-divider, as in חָכְמָ֫ה ḥŏkh-mā́ (wisdom), אָכְלָ֫ה ʾŏkh-lā́ (food). With Metheg ־ָ is ā (å̄) and according to the usual view stands in an open syllable with a following Šewâ mobile, e.g. אָֽכְלָה ʾā-khelā́ (she ate); but cf. § 16 i.
(b) When a closed syllable is formed by Dageš forte, e.g. חָנֵּ֫נִי ḥŏnnēnî (have mercy upon me); but בָּֽתִּ֫ים (with Metheg, § 16 f ζ) bâttîm.
(c) When the syllable in question loses the tone on account of a following Maqqēph (§ 16 a), e.g. כָּל־הָֽאָדָם kŏl-hā-ʾādā́m (all men).
In ψ 3510 and Pr 197 Maqqēph with כָּל is replaced by a conjunctive accent (Merekha); so by Darga, Ju 195 with סְעָד, and Ez 378 with וַיִּקְרָם (so Baer after Qimḥi; ed. Mant., Ginsburg, Kittel ויקרַם).
(d) In a closed final syllable without the tone, e.g. וַיָּ֫קָם wayyā́qŏm (and he stood up).—In the cases where â or ā in the final syllable has become toneless through Maqqēph (§ 16 a) and yet remains, e.g. כְּתָֽב־הַדָּת Est 48, שָֽׁת־לִי Gn 425, it has a Metheg in correct manuscripts and printed texts.
In cases like הָ֫לְאָה, לָ֫מָּה lā́mmā, the tone shows that ־ָ is to be read as ā.
2. The cases in which ־ָ appears to stand in an open syllable and yet is to be read as ŏ require special consideration. This is the case, (a) when Ḥaṭeph-Qameṣ follows, e.g. פָּֽעֳלוֹ his work, or simple vocal Šewâ, e.g. דָּֽרְבָן ox goad; בְּעָֽבְרוֹ Jo 47; שָֽׁמְרָה (so ed. Mant., Ginsb.) preserve ψ 862, cf. 161 and the cases mentioned in § 48 i, n., and § 61 f, n.; other examples are Ob 11111, Ju 1415); Ḥaṭeph-Pathaḥ follows in לִמְשָֽׁחֲךָ (so Ginsburg; Baer לִמְשָֽׁחֳךָ) 1 S 151, לַֽהֲרָֽגֲךָ 24:11, and יִֽפְגָֽשֲׁךָ (so Baer, Gn 3218, others יִפְגָּֽשְׁךָ); (b) before another Qameṣ-ḥaṭuph, e.g. פָּֽעָלְךָ֫ thy work; on אָֽרָה־לִּי and קָֽבָה־לִּי Nu 237, see § 67 o; (c) in the two plural forms קָֽדָשִׁים sanctuaries and שָֽׁרָשִׁים roots (also written קֳד׳ and שֳׁר׳). In all these cases the Jewish grammarians regard the Metheg accompanying the ־ָ as indicating a Qāmeṣ raḥabh (broad Qameṣ) and therefore read the ־ָ as ā; thus pā-olô, dā-rebān, pā-ŏlekhā, qā-dāšîm. But neither the origin of these forms, nor the analogous formations in Hebrew and in the cognate languages, nor the transcription of proper names in the
- ↑ In the Babylonian punctuation (§ 8 g, note) ā and ŏ are carefully distinguished. So also in many MSS with the ordinary punctuation and in Baer’s editions of the text since 1880, in which ־ֳ is used for ŏ as well as for ŏ. Cf. Baer-Delitzsch, Liber Jobi, p. 43. But the identity of the two signs is certainly original, and the use of ־ֳ for ŏ is misleading.
