נֶעֶרְמוּ reveals the stress:
ַ ח וּבְר֤וּחַ {ר}
אַפֶּ֨יךָ֙ נֶ֣עֶרְמוּ מַ֔יִם {ס} נִצְּב֥וּ כְמוֹ־נֵ֖ד {ר}
נֹֽזְלִ֑ים {ס} קָֽפְא֥וּ תְהֹמֹ֖ת בְּלֶב־יָֽם׃
The stress is on the first syllable, ne. This is one of a very small group of words with this type of stress, not milera and not mile'el, but rather with primary stress two syllables away from the last syllable. The cause of this, to my mind, is that the full seghol under the ayin was promoted from being a chataf segol (and we cannot have two shevas in a row). As such, for some reason, when deciding to primary stress, it was considered a sheva, and so the stress was placed mile'el on the nun.
Two pesukim later:
In some texts when printing Az Yashir, they put a chataf patach under the first lamed. This is convention used to denote that the sheva under the first lamed is a sheva na, since when you have two identical or similar letters following one another, the sheva becomes na. This does not mean you have to pronounce it as a chataf patach. Except for the places where they pronounce every sheva na as a chataf patach.
A bit later:
kiddush levana. But not only that, but also the pasuk with the words reversed are featured in kiddush levana as well.
I suppose it still makes some sense in reverse (though with some problems). But the nikkud is off. Specifically, בִּגְדֹל זְרוֹעֲךָ makes sense forward, for it is the construct form, which reduces the vowel under the gimel to a sheva. But in reverse, בִּגְדֹל וָפַחַד , why is there a sheva there. Less problematic, why maintain the kametz in וָפַחַד when it is not following אֵימָתָה? I suppose there is not really room for such grammatical questions on what is simply a liturgical construction.
On the first two pesukim:
In pasuk 9:
all of them are them for the sake of alliteration.
In a similar vein, I think that the repetition of nun initial words in the previous pasuk was also deliberate.
In pasuk 3:
This should certainly not be taken as any evidence of Hashem taking human form. It is idiomatic, and furthermore, ish milchama should be taken as a single entity, to be translated "warrior." Don't deconstruct it.
אַפֶּ֨יךָ֙ נֶ֣עֶרְמוּ מַ֔יִם {ס} נִצְּב֥וּ כְמוֹ־נֵ֖ד {ר}
נֹֽזְלִ֑ים {ס} קָֽפְא֥וּ תְהֹמֹ֖ת בְּלֶב־יָֽם׃
The stress is on the first syllable, ne. This is one of a very small group of words with this type of stress, not milera and not mile'el, but rather with primary stress two syllables away from the last syllable. The cause of this, to my mind, is that the full seghol under the ayin was promoted from being a chataf segol (and we cannot have two shevas in a row). As such, for some reason, when deciding to primary stress, it was considered a sheva, and so the stress was placed mile'el on the nun.
Two pesukim later:
| י נָשַׁפְתָּ {ר} בְרוּחֲךָ, כִּסָּמוֹ יָם; {ס} צָלְלוּ, כַּעוֹפֶרֶת, בְּמַיִם, {ר} אַדִּירִים. {ס} | 10 Thou didst blow with Thy wind, the sea covered them; they sank as lead in the mighty waters. |
A bit later:
kiddush levana. But not only that, but also the pasuk with the words reversed are featured in kiddush levana as well.
I suppose it still makes some sense in reverse (though with some problems). But the nikkud is off. Specifically, בִּגְדֹל זְרוֹעֲךָ makes sense forward, for it is the construct form, which reduces the vowel under the gimel to a sheva. But in reverse, בִּגְדֹל וָפַחַד , why is there a sheva there. Less problematic, why maintain the kametz in וָפַחַד when it is not following אֵימָתָה? I suppose there is not really room for such grammatical questions on what is simply a liturgical construction.
On the first two pesukim:
In pasuk 9:
all of them are them for the sake of alliteration.
In a similar vein, I think that the repetition of nun initial words in the previous pasuk was also deliberate.
In pasuk 3:
| ג ה, אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה; ה, {ר} שְׁמוֹ. {ס} | 3 The LORD is a man of war, The LORD is His name. |
No comments:
Post a Comment