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.
To see this working, head to your live site.
5 Comments
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.