In הַ֥לְלוּ (Psalms 150:1 et alia) does the first lamed with the schwa end the first syllable or begin a second open syllable? Tradition has this word as three syllables ha le lu. Should it be just two hal lu? I note that other consonants with a schwa close a syllable, e.g. in the same verse בְּקָדְשׁ֑וֹ be qad sho.
top of page
bottom of page
Bob
Further to our discussion of this elsewhere, bear in mind that halleyu is the plural of hallel—hence the shva is נע (mobile), rather than naḥ (quiescent).
That is a good question. If we were to rephrase it in the way that the medieval grammarians tended to discuss these sorts of issues, they might say:
In the case of the Tiberian tradition, it all depends on whether or not a gaʕya is present under the ה: i.e,. הֽ.
If a gaʕya is present, then shewa is pronounced mobile. As such, the preceding pataḥ is lengthened being in an open syllable:
Ps. 150.6: הַֽלְלוּ־ [haːlaluː]
Theoretically, if a gaʕya is not present, then the shewa would be pronounced silent. As a result, there would be a geminated lamed and the preceding pataḥ would also remain a short vowel, since it would be in a closed syllable:
eg: הַלְלוּ [halˈluː]
It seems to be the case, however, that gaʕya was not always marked in such situations and yet readers of the Tiberian tradition still tended to pronounce it as [haːlaluː] as if it had gaʕya, even when it did not.
You can read more about this in Geoffrey Khan's book in section §I.2.5.8.3.