Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/75

 LXX, allows us to regard this view as correct. It is just possible that Qameṣ is here used loosely for , as the equivalent of ō, on the analogy of &c.,. As a matter of fact, however, we ought no doubt to divide and read (for ),, .—Quite as inconceivable is it for  to be a sign of the lengthening into ā in  , although it is so in  bā-ʾonî (in the navy), since here the ā of the article appears under the.

1. Besides the full vowels, Hebrew has also a series of vowel sounds which may be called (Sievers, ). The punctuation makes use of these to represent extremely slight sounds which are to be regarded as remains of fuller and more distinct vowels from an earlier period of the language. They generally take the place of vowels standing in. Such short vowels, though preserved in the kindred languages, are not tolerated by the present system of pointing in Hebrew, but either undergo a lengthening or are weakened to Šewâ. Under some circumstances, however, the original short vowel may reappear.

To these belongs first of all the sign, which indicates an extremely short, slight, and (as regards pronunciation) indeterminate vowel sound, something like an obscure half ĕ ( e ). It is called, which may be either  as distinguished from the compound (see ), or   as distinguished from , which is silent and stands as a mere syllable divider (see ) under the consonant which closes the syllable.

The vocal stands under a consonant which is closely united, as a kind of grace-note, with the following syllable, either (a) at the beginning of the word, as  qeṭōl (to kill),  memallē (filling), or (b) in the middle of the word, as  qô-ṭelā,  yiq-ṭelû.

In former editions of this Grammar was distinguished as medium when it followed a short vowel and therefore stood in a supposed ‘loosely closed’ or ‘wavering’ syllable, as in,. According to Sievers,, i. 22, this distinction must now be abandoned. These syllables are really closed, and the original vowel is not merely shortened, but entirely elided. The fact that a following Begadkephath letter remains spirant instead of taking, is explained by Sievers on the ‘supposition that the change from hard to spirant is elder than the elision