Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/64

 Preliminary Remark.

The next two sections (§§ 8 and 9) have been severely criticized (Philippi, 1897, no. 2) for assigning a definite quantity to each of the several vowels, whereas in reality, ,  are merely signs for ä, e, o: ‘whether these are long or short is not shown by the signs themselves but must be inferred from the rules for the pause which marks the breaks in continuous narrative, or from other circumstances.’ But in the twenty-fourth and subsequent German editions of this Grammar, in the last note on  [English ed. p. 38, note 4], it was stated: ‘it must be mentioned that the Masoretes are not concerned with any distinction between long and short vowels, or in general with any question of quantity. Their efforts are directed to fixing the received pronunciation as faithfully as possible, by means of writing. For a long time only were reckoned (vox memor. in Elias Levita ), Šureq and Qibbuṣ being counted as one vowel. The division of the vowels in respect of quantity is a later attempt at a scientific conception of the phonetic system, which was not invented but only represented by the Masoretes (Qimchi;, ed. Rittenb. 136 a, distinguishes the five long as mothers from their five daughters).’

I have therefore long shared the opinion that ‘the vowel-system represented by the ordinary punctuation (of Tiberias) was primarily intended to mark only differences of quality’ (Sievers,, i. 17). There is, however, of course a further question how far these ‘later’ grammarians were mistaken in assigning a particular quantity to the vowels represented by particular signs. In Philippi’s opinion they were mistaken (excluding of course î, ê, ô when written ) in a very great number of cases, since not only does stand, according to circumstances, for ' or ', and  for ' or ', but also  for ē or ĕ, and  for ō or ŏ, e.g.  and, out of pause kbĕ́d, qṭŏ́n (form ), but in pause kbḗd, qṭṓn.

I readily admit, with regard to and Segol, that the account formerly given in. was open to misconstruction. With regard to and, however, I can only follow Philippi so long as his view does not conflict with the (to me inviolable) law of a long vowel in an open syllable before the tone and (except Pathaḥ) in a final syllable with the tone. To me = kbĕ́d, &c., is as impossible as e.g.  = ʿĕnab or  = bŏrakh, in spite of the analogy cited by Sievers (p. 18, note 1) that ‘in old German e.g. original ĭ and ŭ often pass into ĕ and ŏ dialectically, while remaining in a closed syllable.

1. The full vowels (in contrast to the half-vowels or vowel trills, –), classified according to the three principal vowel sounds, are as follows:—

First Class. A-sound.