Version classiqueVersion mobile

The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew. Volume II

 | 
Geoffrey Khan

II. Introduction

Texte intégral

II. Int.0.1. Preliminary Remarks

1This volume presents an edition and English translation of the sections of the Masoretic treatise Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ ‘Guide for the Reader’ that coNcerN the coNsoNaNts aNd vowels. This medieval work constitutes an important primary source for the reconstruction of the Tiberian pronunciation tradition, and it has been constantly referred to in volume 1.

2Some general remarks concerning Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ in the context of other Masoretic treatises have been made in vol. 1, §I.0.13.1., where references are given to previous scholarship on the text, in particular the important work of Ilan Eldar.

  • 1 His authorship is identified explicitly in a scribal note preserved in the Genizah fragment of the (...)

3The author of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ was the Karaite grammarian ʾAbū al-Faraj HārūN, who was active in Jerusalem in the first half of the eleventh century (see vol. 1, §I.0.13.4.).1 He produced the work in Arabic in both a long and a short version, first writing the long version and subsequently abbreviating this to produce a shortened recension. These underwent further recensions in later centuries in both Arabic and Hebrew (see vol. 1, §I.0.13.1.). The origiNal Arabic versioNs writteN by ʾAbū al-Faraj HārūN coNtaiNed an introduction, followed by sections on the consonants, vowels and accents. The edition presented in this volume is of the extant portions of the introduction and sections on the consonants and vowels in both versions. Also included in the edition are some selected passages from the section on the accents that relate to the gaʿya and to the interaction of vocalization and stress. Eldar (2018) has made an edition of the section on musical accents and also has published selected passages from other sections of both versions of the treatise (e.g. Eldar 1980; 1987a; 1987b; 1994). There are not, however, any full editions of all the extant portions of the introduction and the sections on the consonants and vowels in the two versions. Moreover, Eldar published the selected passages with a Hebrew translation. The edition in this volume, therefore, complements the work of Eldar by making available the entire text of the introduction and sections on consonants and vowels and by providing an English translation. It is based on many newly identified manuscripts in the Firkovitch collections (National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg), which now allow a complete reconstruction of the text of the short version and a nearly complete reconstruction of the text of the long version. The edition is accompanied by a commentary, which clarifies passages where it has been deemed necessary and contextualizes the ideas of ʾAbū al-Faraj within the linguistic and philosophical thought of his day.

II. Int.0.2. The Long Version

4IN his iNtroductioN to the loNg versioN, ʾAbū al-Faraj indicates (§II.L.0.1.10.) that the work consists of three discourses (maqālāt), one devoted to consonants, one to vowels and one to accents. The introduction to the third discourse refers to the division of the work into two parts (ʾajzāʾ), with the first two discourses in part one and the third discourse in part two:

  • 2 MS L8, fol. 57r: אן אלגזו אלאול פיה מקאלתין אלמקאלה אלאולי תשתמל עלי אלכלאם פי אלחרוף ואלמקאלה אלתא (...)

The first part contains two discourses. The first discourse contains a discussion concerning the letters. The second discourse contains a discussion concerning the vowels. This part contains one discourse, which contains a discussion concerning the accents of the twenty-one books and the accents of the three books.2

5The majority of sections of the long version that are covered by the edition here are extant in their entirety in the surviving manuscripts, with only a few, apparently relatively small, gaps.

6The grammatical works of ʾAbū al-Faraj reflect a considerable influence from contemporary Arabic linguistic thought and direct parallels can be found between his works and Arabic grammatical literature (Khan 1997; Khan, Gallego, and Olszowy-Schlanger 2003, xi–xxxii; Becker 1996; Basal 1998; 1999). ʾAbū al-Faraj’s works exhibit convergences with contemporary Arabic texts also in general features of literary form, such as the authorial preface (Goldstein 2014).

  • 3 ʾAbū ʿAmr ʿUthmāN ibN Saʿīd al-DāNī, Al-Taḥdīd fī al-ʾItqān wa-l-Tajwīd (ed. al-Ḥamad 2001).
  • 4 Makkī ibN ʾAbī Ṭālib al-Qaysī, Al-Riʿāya li-Tajwīd al-Qirāʾa wa-Taḥqīq Lafẓ al-Tilāwa (ed. Farḥāt 1 (...)

7The Arabic genre of literature that would be expected to correspond most closely to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ is that of works on correct Qurʾānic recitation, known as tajwīd. A comparison with tajwīd works from roughly the same period, such as those of al-DāNī (d. 1052-3)3 and al-Qaysī (d. 1045),4 reveals some parallels in structure. These tajwīd manuals open with an introduction on the requirements of tajwīd sanctioned by earlier authorities. This is followed by a series of sections on the pronunciation of the consonants, arranged by place of articulation, which is clearly analogous to the contents of the first discourse of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ. In these tajwīd manuals, however, there are no clear counterparts to the various sections of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ on philosophical aspects of letters (§II.L.1.1.), on morphological formations involving the interchange, augmentation and elision of letters (§II.L.1.5., §II.L.1.11., §II.L.1.13.) and on verbal conjugations (§II.L.1.10), which are found in the first discourse of the long version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ.

8The remainder of the contents of the tajwīd manuals are concerned mainly with contextual variations in the realization of vowels, in particular with regard to their length. This does not correspond very closely to the second discourse of the long version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, which is concerned with philosophical aspects of vowels (§II.L.2.1.–§II.L.2.2., §II.L.2.18.), the role of vowels in various morphological formations (§II.L.2.3.–§II.L.2.8., §II.L.2.16.–§II.L.2.17), the shewa (§II.L.2.9.–§II.L.2.13.) and the production and places of articulation of vowels (§II.L.2.14.– §II.L.2.15.).

9The tajwīd manuals do not contain sections corresponding to the treatment of cantillation accents in the third discourse of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, since pitch variation in the recitation of the QurʾāN is not prescribed but is improvised (Nelson 2001).

  • 5 This caN be traced to the Muslim physiciaN IbN SīNā (980–1037 C.E.); cf. Eldar (1983) and vol. 1, § (...)

10The various aforementioned components in the three discourses of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ that do not have counterparts in the tajwīd manuals have been incorporated from the Masoretic tradition, from material on morphology in other grammatical works of ʾAbū al-Faraj HārūN, from the Arabic grammatical tradition, e.g. the theory of the production of vowels (§II.L.2.15.),5 and from philosophical treatments of language in Muslim speculative theological works (kalām). The custom of incorporating morphological material into treatments of pronunciation is seen already in earlier Masoretic treatises such as Kitāb al-Muṣawwitāt (ed. Allony 1963) and Seder ha-Simanim (ed. Allony 1965). It is clear that Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ is hybrid with regard to the nature and origin of its contents. It does not replicate exactly the format of Qurʾānic tajwīd manuals. It does not, moreover, constitute a simple compendium of material from the Masoretic tradition, despite the statement to that effect in §II.L.0.9. of the introduction.

II. Int.0.3. The Short Version

11The short version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ has survived in many more manuscripts than the long version. This reflects the greater popularity of the short version. The same applies to the distributioN of ʾAbū al-Faraj’s grammar book al-Kitāb al-Kāfī fī al-Lugha al-ʿIbrāniyya ‘The Sufficient Book concerning the Hebrew LaNguage’, which is a shortened version of his original grammar book al-Kitāb al-Mushtamil ʿalā al-ʾUṣūl wa-l-Fuṣūl fī al-Lugha al-ʿIbrāniyya ‘The Comprehensive Book of General Principles and Particular Rules of the Hebrew Language’ and is extant in many more manuscripts than al-Kitāb al-Mushtamil (Khan, Gallego and Olszowy-Schlanger 2003, xlvii).

12In the introduction to the short version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, ʾAbū al-Faraj indicates that he may take the opportunity to include ‘where necessary what was not mentioned in the (original) Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ’. This is analogous to his approach in al-Kitāb al-Kāfī, in which he in several places states that he is expanding on material that is dealt with in al-Kitāb al-Mushtamil or presenting the material in a different arrangement. In one case he admits that the view he expresses in al-Kitāb al-Kāfī should supersede the remarks he made on the subject in al-Kitāb al-Kāfī (Khan, Gallego and Olszowy-Schlanger 2003, xxxiii).

13The first two discourses of the original long version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ have been made more concise in the short version by removing sections that relate to philosophical discussions of letters and vowels, and sections that are concerned with morphological patterns and processes. The main sections that are retained in the short version of the first two discourses concern the pronunciation of the consonants, vowels and shewa. The division into two discourses has also been eliminated.

14The first part of the introduction to the short version (§II.S.0.1.–§II.S.0.2.) includes a variety of titles of the work. It is indicated that the long version was called Kitāb al-Shurūṭ ‘The Book of CoNditioNs/Rules’, but was generally known (mulaqqab) by the name Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ. The term sharṭ ‘rule’ is a term that is frequently used in the work. The short version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ (mukhtaṣar Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ) is said in the introduction to have been known as Kitāb al-Muhja ‘The Book of the Essential Requirements (literally: the lifeblood).’ This corresponds closely the title Muhjat al-Qāriʾ ( ה׳גהמ ראקלא ) ‘The Essential Requirements of the Reader’ that appears in a booklist datable to the 13th century (Allony 1975, 56). A Genizah fragment of the short version has a scribal note that refers to the work as Kitāb al-Hidāya fī ʿIlm Shurūṭ al-Miqrā ‘The Book of GuidaNce regardiNg the Knowledge of the Rules of Scriptural ReadiNg’ (JRL A 694). A Genizah fragment of an anonymous Masoretic treatise (CUL T-S NS 311.113) refers, moreover, to what appears to be Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ by the title Kitāb al-ʾAlḥān ‘The Book of the AcceNts’.

15Some other works of ʾAbū al-Faraj are referred to with different forms of title. This applies, for example, to his glossary of biblical words, which is referred to in the sources with various titles, including Tafsīr ʾAlfāẓ al-Miqrā ‘Explanation of Biblical Words’, Sharḥ ʾAlfāẓ allatī fīhā Ṣuʿūba fī al-Miqrā wa-Dhikr Ishtiqāqihā ‘The Explanation of Words in the Bible that have Difficulty and the Mention of their DerivatioN’, ʾAlfāẓ al-Ṣaʿba allatī li-l-Torah ‘The Difficult Words of the PeNtateuch’ (Goldstein 2014, 357).

16The full text of the sections that are covered in this edition are extant in the surviving manuscripts.

II. Int.0.4. The Manuscript Corpus

  • 6 These include some manuscripts that were identified by Ilan Eldar. I identified the remainder in my (...)

17The edition of the long version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ is based on all manuscripts of the work that are known to me. These are extant predominantly in the Second Firkovitch collection of the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg. The corpus includes the following manuscripts. Full class-marks are given together with the abbreviations that are used in the edition:6

18St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia:

II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2390 = L1
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2505 = L2
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 4477 = L3
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. II 307 = L4
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. II 418 = L5
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. II 604 = L6

19Cambridge University Library:

T-S NS 301.23 = L7

20New York, The Jewish Theological Seminary:

JTS 8110, EMC 829, 832 = L8

  • 7 I identified the majority of these manuscripts in my searches through the Firkovitch collection. So (...)

21The number of extant manuscripts of the short version is much larger and only a selection of those that are extant were used for the edition. These again are predominantly from the Second Firkovitch collection, which preserves the longest manuscripts. My corpus includes the following:7

22St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia:

II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2347 = S1
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2477 = S2
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2478 = S3
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2480 = S4
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2481 = S5
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2528 = S6
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2542 = S7
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2544 = S8
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2551 = S9
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2557 = S10
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2772 = S11
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2794 = S12
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2795 = S13
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2813 = S14
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2814 = S15
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2897 = S16
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2928 = S17
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2941 = S18
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2945 = S19
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 2966 = S20
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 3384 = S21
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. I 3944 = S22
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. II 297 = S23
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. II 323 = S24
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. II 325 = S25
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. II 326 = S26
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. II 420 = S27
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. II 488 = S28

23Cambridge University Library:

Mosseri I, 57.2 = S29

24In addition to these manuscripts, there are also several extant Genizah fragments containing the short version, which were used by Eldar (1987a; 1987b) in his edition of selected passages from the short version. For my own edition I decided to give preference to the longer manuscripts that are now available in the Firkovitch collection.

25The manuscripts of the corpus that are used for the edition of the long and short versions are all written in Judaeo-Arabic (Arabic in Hebrew script). They do not include any colophons. Their scribal hands and codicology, however, are similar to the manuscripts from the Firkovtich collection that formed the basis of the editioN of ʾAbū al-Faraj’s grammatical work al-Kitāb al-Kāfī (Khan, Gallego, and Olszowy-Schlanger 2003, xlvii–lxix). Based on this comparison, therefore, they can be dated to a period ranging from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries. Their ultimate origin would in all likelihood have been the Karaite synagogue in Cairo, which appears to have been the source of most of the Second Firkovitch collection (Harviainen 1996).

II. Int.0.5. The edition and Translation of the Texts

26The edition of the two texts follows the same basic method as was applied iN the editioN of ʾAbū al-Faraj’s al-Kitāb al-Kāfī (ed. Khan, Gallego, and Olszowy-Schlanger 2003). The objective of this method is to produce a text that is as clear and readable as possible but still remains close to the philological reality of the manuscripts.

27For each section of the works a single manuscript was chosen to act as the basis of the edition. Preference was given to a manuscript that contains the section in undamaged folios. As is the case with most manuscripts of the Second Firkovitch collection, individual folios are often out of order in the manuscripts of the corpus. This has often necessitated re-ordering the folios. Where the complete section is not contained in one base manuscript, various base manuscripts are used for the section.

28As far as possible, the text is presented in the edition exactly as it appears in this base manuscript for a particular section, following its orthography and reproducing the diacritical marks and vocalization. Where scribes make corrections or additions to the text, these are incorporated into the edition. No indication is made, however, of deleted text. Similarly, when text is inserted as an afterthought in the margin, it has been included in the main text of the edition .

29Collations are made with other manuscripts that preserve this section of the text. Where there is a difference in another manuscript, this is indicated in the critical apparatus. These differences include both textual and also orthographic variations.

30If the reading in another manuscript is clearly superior to that of the base manuscript, the superior reading is adopted in the edited text and distinguished by enclosing it in angled brackets <....>. Editorial judgements as to superiority in reading do not include cases where another manuscript has a linguistic construction that conforms more closely to the conventions of Classical Arabic than the one found in the base manuscript, so long as the construction in the base manuscript could be interpreted as exhibiting a difference only in linguistic register and is not the result of a scribal error. In some cases where the reading of the base manuscript makes little sense and no superior reading is available in other manuscripts, an emended reading is proposed, enclosed in angled brackets, which is as close as possible in form to the reading in the manuscript .

31If small lacunae occur in the base manuscript and the text has been supplied from another manuscript or the missing text is easily reconstructable, the supplied text is enclosed in square brackets […].

32As remarked, the diacritical marks of the base manuscript are reproduced in the edition. These include marks on letters and vocalization. In most cases diacritical dots on letters are inconsistently marked in the manuscripts and this inconsistent marking is reproduced in the edition. It was decided, however, to mark a dot consistently over the letters ṣade and ṭet when they represent Arabic ḍād and ẓāʾ, respectively, even if they do not have a diacritical dot in the manuscript. The purpose of this was to make the text more readable. Missing or inconsistently marked diacritics of other letters were judged not to reduce the readability of the text. Indeed, it cannot be excluded that the omission of diacritical marks on the letters dalet and tav representing Arabic dhāl and thāʾ may, in some cases, be a reflection of the pronunciation of these consonants by the scribe as stops rather than fricatives due to the interference of his vernacular dialect .

33Hebrew words and Biblical quotations are vocalized in some manuscripts. If vocalization appears in the base manuscript, this is reproduced in the edition exactly as it is written by the scribe. The vocalization always consists of Tiberian signs, but in many cases it deviates from the standard Tiberian Masoretic vocalization. These reflect idiosyncracies of vocalization and pronunciation of individual scribes who transmitted the text. The standard Tiberian vocalization of the Hebrew words is given in the translation on the page facing the edited text. The most common deviations from standard Tiberian vocalization include the following:

Interchange of segol and pataḥ (cf. vol. 1, §I.4.3.3.), e.g.
Image (long version, §II.L.1.10. | Standard Tiberian: Image Gen. 14.2 ‘Bera’)
Image (long version, §II.L.1.10. | Standard Tiberian: Image Psa. 92.7 ‘stupidity’)
Image (long version, §II.L.2.12.7. | Standard Tiberian: Image ‘also’)
Image (long version, §II.L.2.12.14. | Standard Tiberian: Image Jer. 22.23 ‘nested’)
Image (long version, §II.L.2.10.2. | Standard Tiberian: Image ‘Jehdeiah’)
Image (long version, §II.L.1.13. | Standard Tiberian: Image ̒it multiplies’)

34Simple vowel sign in place of a ḥaṭef sign on gutturals, e.g.

Image (long version, §II.L.1.11.4. | Standard Tiberian: Image Psa. 92.4 ‘aNd oN’)
Image (long version, §II.L.1.11.4. | Standard Tiberian: Image ‘until’)
Image (long version, §II.L.2.12.4.2. | Standard Tiberian: Image Josh. 8.14 ‘they made haste’)

35Non-standard distribution of shewa and ḥaṭef signs, e.g.

ףכ Image (long version, §II.L.2.12.1.6. | Standard Tiberian: Image Psa. 98.8 ‘let them clap their hands’)
Image (long version, §II.L.2.12.1.6. | Standard Tiberian: Image Ezra 7.16 ‘their God’)
Image (long version, §II.L.2.12.2.2. | Standard Tiberian: Image Isa. 27.2 ‘on that day’)

36The edited texts have been divided into numbered sections and subsections, which correspond to sense units. In some cases these paragraph divisions are also marked in the base manuscript by various means, such as section titles or blank spaces. In numerous cases, however, they are not marked in the manuscript. It was decided that the imposition of a system of paragraph division produced a text that is far more readable and also would facilitate reference to specific passages. The numbers of the paragraphs consist of three elements: A roman numeral II, denoting volume 2 of the book, a capital L or S, denoting the long or short version respectively, and a series of Arabic numerals indicating sections and subsections, e.g. II.L.1.7.11 (= vol. 2, long version, section 1.7.11.). Where the original text does not have a title at a major section division, a title indicating the contents of the section is supplied in the translation in brackets. Where the original text has only a generic title at such divisions, such as לצפ faṣl ‘sectioN’, the specific coNteNt of the sectioN is likewise supplied in the translation in brackets.

37Section numbers of this introduction have the prefix II. Int.

38The folio divisions of the base manuscript are shown in the edited text by a superscribed abbreviation of the manuscript with the folio number after a colon, indicating where the following text begins, e.g.(L5:17v) denotes that the following text begins on fol. 17 verso of the manuscript L5.

39The English translation is intended to be read either in conjunction with the original text or independently of it. An attempt has been made to convey to the reader as clearly as possible the sense of the author. The translation is not, therefore, a slavishly literal rendering of the text, since this would often remain obscure for the English reader on account of the predilection of ʾAbū al-Faraj for complex syntax. Biblical quotations are reproduced in the original Hebrew, with standard Masoretic vocalization and an English translation. Occasional footnotes clarify some details of the translation. Longer explanations on the various sections of the text are given in a commentary after the editions. This commentary includes references to various parallel sources and to the relevant sections in vol. 1.

II. Int.0.6. Terminology

40The techNical termiNology used by ʾAbū al-Faraj in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ corresponds closely to what is found in his grammatical works (Khan, Gallego, and Olszowy-Schlanger 2003, xxxix–xlvi). Much of the grammatical terminology is that which was used in the mainstream Baṣran school of Arabic grammar of the period. There are also a number of survivals of Hebrew and Aramaic terms from the Masoretic and early Karaite grammatical tradition. Some of these have been Arabicized. The main technical terms that are used in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ are as follows.

II. Int.0.6.1. Arabic Terms

רמא ʾamr ‘imperative’
אחנא ʾanḥāʾ ‘vowels’
סאסא ʾasās ‘basic noun’
םסא ism ‘noun’
םאהפתסא istifhām ‘interrogative’
לצא ʾaṣl ‘basic form’
יב bet
לאד dāldalet’
ואו wāwvav
גז zujj ‘arrow-head’ (term for the vowel sign qibbuṣ)
ףרח ḥarf ‘letter’
ףרח ןיללא ḥarf al-līn ‘soft letter’ (see commentary on §II.L.1.1.7.)
ףרח למעתסמ ḥarf mustaʿmal ‘auxiliary letter’ (see commentary on §II.L.1.12.3.)
םאעט ṭaʿām ‘taste (of a vowel)’, ‘perceived quality (of a vowel)’ (see commentary on §II.L.1.1.)
םדאכ khādim ‘subordinate particle’
ףאכ kāfkaf
רבכ khabar ‘assertion’
ינאדסכ kasdānī ‘Aramaic’
הרסכ kasra (i vowel)
̇ כ ̇ ץפ khafḍ ‘lowering’ (vowel quality) (see commentary on §II.L.2.3.)
הגל lugha ‘lexical class’ (see commentary on §II.L.0.1.1.)
צאמ ̇ י māḍī ‘past tense’
שוגדמ madgūsh ‘with dagesh
רכדמ madhakkar ‘masculine’
תנומ muʾannath ‘feminine’
ךלמ (pl. ךולמ ) ‘vowel’ (literally: ‘king’)
לבקתסמ mustaqbal ‘future tense’
לועפמ mafʿūl ‘passive participle’
לועפמ קלטמ mafʿūl muṭlaq ‘absolute object’ (equated with the Hebrew infinitive, see commentary on §II.L.2.7.1.)
צמ ̇ ףא muḍāf ‘conjoined’ (see commentary to §II.L.1.5.21.)
רדצמ ראעתסמ maṣdar mustaʿār ‘transposed infinitive’ (see commentary on §II.L.2.7.2.)
עטקמ maqṭaʿ ‘prosodic stopping point’, ‘place of prosodic divisioN’ (§II.L.2.10.3., §I.2.5.2.)
יפרמ marfī ‘with rafe
המגנ naghama ‘vowel’
בצנ naṣb ‘holding level’ (vowel quality) (see commentary on §II.L.2.3.)
הטקנ הדחאו nuqṭa wāḥida ‘single dot’, i.e. ḥireq
הטקנ ןמ לפסא nuqṭa min ʾasfal ‘dot below’, i.e. ḥireq
ןיטקנ nuqṭatayn ‘two dots’, i.e. ṣere
ןכאס sākin ‘silent, without a following vowel’
ינארבע ʿibrānī ‘Hebrew (language)’
ףטע ʿaṭf ‘conjunction’
̇ ץרע ʿaraḍ ‘abstraction, abstract property, verbal property’ לעאפ fāʿil ‘agentive participle’
לעאפ ריגלאב fāʿil bi-l-ghayr ‘transitive agent’
לעאפ הספנב fāʿil bi-nafsihi ‘reflexive agent’
החתאפ ‘pataḥ
לעפ fiʿl ‘verb’
לעפ ידלא םל םסי הלעאפ fiʿil alladhī lam yusamma fāʿiluhu ‘actioN whose ageNt has Not beeN meNtioNed’, i.e. passive.
לעפ יפ ספנלא fiʿl fī al-nafs ‘intransitive verb’
ערפ farʿ ‘secondary, derivative form’
החתפ fatḥa (a vowel)
צ ̇ המ ḍamma (u vowel)
qameṣ‘ ) ץמאוק .pl( הצמאק
עטק qaṭʿ ‘disjoined state’
בכאר rākib ‘affix’
עפר rafʿ ‘raising’ (vowel quality) (see commentary on §II.L.2.3.)
אוש ‘shewa
אוש ךרחתמ shewa mutaḥarrik ‘mobile shewa
אוש ןכאס shewa sākin ‘silent shewa
תלת טקנ thalāth nuqaṭ ‘three dots’, i.e. segol
ףירצת taṣrīf ‘verbal conjugation’
רידקת taqdīr ‘virtual form’ (see commentary on §II.L.1.4.8.)

II. Int.0.6.2. Hebrew and Aramaic Terms

א ו גֹ ֵר הָ ‘collection’ of exceptional words with regard to the occurrence of dagesh on initial תפכדגב consonants (§II.L.1.7., §II.S.2.0.)
תניא the person prefixes of the prefix conjugation ( ת , נ , י , א ) א ָ ת ֵ א מ ֵר חַ ִ קי ‘coming from far’, a variant form of deḥiq (§II.L.1.7., §II.S.2.0.)
בּ ְ תי ה ַ בּ ְ ל ִ עי ָ ה ‘place of swallowing, throat’
לאמג ‘gimel
Image symbol representing verbal conjugations with imperatives containing pataḥ in the first syllable and past forms containing ḥireq in the first syllable (§II.L.2.7.2., §II.L.2.8.2.)
Imagegaʿya
Imagedagesh
Image ‘what is compressed’, deḥiq, compression of a vowel that brings about the occurrence of dagesh at the beginning of a following word (§II.L.1.7., §II.S.2.0.)
Image ‘what is paused’, a pause due to paseq (§II.L.1.7., §II.S.2.0.)
אה , Imagehe
Imagevav
תיח ‘ḥet
Imageḥolem
Imageḥireq
תיט ‘ṭet
Image (i) ‘accent’; (ii) ‘taste (of a vowel)’, ‘perceived quality (of a vowel)’ (see commentary on §II.L.1.1.)
דוי ‘yod
Image symbol representing verbal conjugations with imperatives containing ḥolem in the first syllable and past forms containing pataḥ in the first syllable (§II.L.2.5.)
דאמל ‘lamed
Image ‘lexical class’, ‘linguistic form’ (see commentary on §II.L.0.1.1.)
Image ‘definite’
mem‘ םאמ , םימ
Image symbol representing verbal conjugations with imperatives containing pataḥ in the first syllable and past forms containing segol in the first syllable (§II.L.2.7.2.)
Image ‘disjoined’ (see commentary to §II.L.1.5.21.)
Image ‘indefinite’
Image symbol representing verbal conjugations with imperatives containing ṣere in the last syllable and past forms containing pataḥ in the last syllable (§II.L.2.8.2.)
Image, Imagemappiq
ןונ ‘nun
הלוגס ‘segol
ךאמס ‘samekh
Image ‘conjoined’ (see commentary to §II.L.1.5.21., §II.L.2.17.)
Image ‘past tense’
ןיע ‘ʿayin
ImageImage ‘root of the tongue’
אפ ‘pe
חתפ ‘pataḥ
ידצ ‘ṣade
Imageṣere
ףוק ‘qof
Imageqameṣ
שיר ‘resh
Imagerafe
Image symbol representing verbal conjugations with imperatives containing shureq in the first syllable and past forms containing qameṣ in the first syllable (§II.L.2.6.)
שׁ ִ ןי ‘shin
Image symbol representing verbal conjugations with imperatives containing ḥireq in the first syllable and past forms containing qameṣ in the first syllable (§II.L.2.8.2.)
שׁ ִ די ו ֹ symbol representing verbal conjugations with imperatives containing ḥireq in the first syllable and past forms containing ḥolem in the first syllable (§II.L.2.5.)
קרש ‘shureq
ImageImagetav
Image ‘interrrogative’

Notes

1 His authorship is identified explicitly in a scribal note preserved in the Genizah fragment of the short version JRL A 694 (Eldar 1994, 41).

2 MS L8, fol. 57r: אן אלגזו אלאול פיה מקאלתין אלמקאלה אלאולי תשתמל עלי אלכלאם פי אלחרוף ואלמקאלה אלתאניה תשתמל עלי אלכלאם פי אלמלוך והדא אלגזו פיה מקאלה ואחדה תשתמל עלי אלכלאם פי אלחאן אלואחד ועשרין ספר ואלחאן .אלתלתה אספאר

3 ʾAbū ʿAmr ʿUthmāN ibN Saʿīd al-DāNī, Al-Taḥdīd fī al-ʾItqān wa-l-Tajwīd (ed. al-Ḥamad 2001).

4 Makkī ibN ʾAbī Ṭālib al-Qaysī, Al-Riʿāya li-Tajwīd al-Qirāʾa wa-Taḥqīq Lafẓ al-Tilāwa (ed. Farḥāt 1996).

5 This caN be traced to the Muslim physiciaN IbN SīNā (980–1037 C.E.); cf. Eldar (1983) and vol. 1, §I.2.1.3.

6 These include some manuscripts that were identified by Ilan Eldar. I identified the remainder in my investigations in the Firkovitch collection.

7 I identified the majority of these manuscripts in my searches through the Firkovitch collection. Some were drawn to my attention by José Martínez Delgado, whose help is here gratefully acknowledged.

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search