Summary: Shadal corrects the erroneous trup; and Wickes makes the same suggestion, finding two texts which have it. After all, should בַּעַל really be separated from הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה? Then, Shadal differs with a different aspect of trup. And he also gives his thoughts on the etymology and meaning of הַלָּזֶה.
Post: When the brothers see Yosef's approach from a distance, they note it to each other.
(The Teimanim and the Leningrad Codex have identical trup in pasuk 19 to what is pictured above.)
"Halazeh -- every halazeh indicates seeing him from a distance. And so too 'who is this man halezeh (earlier, 24:65 [when Rivkah first spies Yitzchak]) (Rashbam).
And it appears to me that a scribal error fell in the trup, and it appropriate to mark the words בעל החלומות with darga tevir. And it appears to me as well that the word הלזה, which is a grafting of the words הלאה זה ['further on is this'], does not refer here to the man, but rather to the place, as הנה הלזה ('there in that place) is the בעל החלומות, that he is coming. And according to this, הלזה is connected to הנה [at the start of the clause], and not with [the immediately preceding words] בעל החלומות. And according to this, it is fitting that it [meaning the word הנה] be marked with a trup of a lesser degree than tevir, which would be a geresh, as
הנה -- gershayim
בעל -- darga
החלומות -- tevir
הלזה -- tipcha
בא -- silluk
[See image.] That is to say, behold, in that place is the dreamer, that he is coming. And so see הנה השונמית הלז (II Melachim 4:25), 'behold the Shunamite is there, in that place."
I'd like to discuss the trup, and Shadal's competing suggestion, a bit more. The full pasuk, in plain text, is:
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה בָּא
The etnachta lops off the first part of the pasuk, attributing the speech, so we are left to parse:
הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה בָּא
The pasuk again, with trup, is:
What subdivides clauses ending in silluq (and equivalently, etnachta)? Depending on distance, measured in words, the zakef and tipcha. Here we only have tipcha, so it gives us:
הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה | בָּא
Within tipcha's clause, the dichotomy is marked by tevir, revii, and pashta, with the earlier appearing symbol marking the major dichotomy and the later appearing symbol marking the minor dichotomy. Therefore, the revii on הִנֵּה is lopped off first, making it:
הִנֵּה | בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה
and finally, within the last three words, the tevir on בעל separating it off, into:
בַּעַל | הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה
Shadal is correct that this is highly irregular. The word בַּעַל is a construct noun. It surely should be joined closely to הַחֲלֹמוֹת, and if you are going to separate off any word, it should be הַלָּזֶה. He says that it seems that this is a taus sofer. Instead, keeping the rest of the trup in place, one should place the tevir on החלמות, and a servus of darga on בעל. This would keep the words together.
This sounds more than plausible. It sounds quite convincing. Yet, he does not bring manuscript evidence to prove that his suggested emendation exists in any manuscript.
But Wickes writes the same thing, and indeed finds manuscript evidence to support it. Thus, William Wickes writes:
After establishing what he thinks is a scribal error and how he would correct it, Shadal proceeds to argue with the trup. He is not necessarily asserting that the different trup as it exists, as a revii, is a scribal error. Rather, he is arguing for a different understanding of the word הלזה, which would then cause a different appropriate trup marking.
He is stating (assuming that he works precisely with Wickes) that revii and tevir stand on the same level, so the הנה as it presently stands is marked off too early. If we use a lighter level trup, such as geresh/gershayim, which is used to mark the minor dichotomy of a tevir, then הנה will be marked off later.
הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה | בָּא
הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת | הַלָּזֶה
because of the tevir. And then
הִנֵּה | בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת
הִנֵּה | בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת || הַלָּזֶה ||| בָּא
I am not so convinced that, with his understanding of הלזה, the revii is so inappropriate. But perhaps I don't fully understand the way trup intersects with the expected parse here.