tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post2582139445096189856..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Shadal on the trup on הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹתjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-90798466392279318572011-12-16T11:16:26.205-05:002011-12-16T11:16:26.205-05:00Actually, come to think of it, I think we might be...Actually, come to think of it, I think we might be in slight disagreement.<br /><br />Ba, according to both parsings, is knocked off first. That is the function of the tipcha.<br /><br />What is left is then הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה.<br /><br />Why then, should it matter, if we first knock off הַלָּזֶה or first knock off הִנֵּה from this greater phrase. (It might have to do with binding...)<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-67831998268164203582011-12-14T18:26:19.977-05:002011-12-14T18:26:19.977-05:00in terms of the rest of the analysis, I think we a...in terms of the rest of the analysis, I think we are in agreement. My sentence following "All together" is essentially what you are stating.<br /><br />To explain my last paragraph: What I am NOT convinced of, though, is that trup really works that way. That is, given that Ba is partitioned off first regardless, that Hineh can't bind distantly with Halazeh at the end even if we place the revii there and mark it off second. Given, again, that revii and tevir stand at the same "level" (see above comment), I remain unconvinced that it is not a purely **syntactic** division at this point, rather than some logical connectivity which influenced what is broken off first. Indeed, I have the same issue for a number of these sorts of trup divrei Torahs, where someone makes this sort of diyuk. (Wait for tomorrow's Ibn Caspi trup post for another example.)<br /><br />Kol tuv,<br />Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-58837323887420376372011-12-14T17:07:06.325-05:002011-12-14T17:07:06.325-05:00"I don't believe he is saying that revia ..."I don't believe he is saying that revia and tevir are on the same level. That simply isn't true. "<br /><br />Perhaps I was not precise enough. I was using different terminology. By "the same level", I don't mean the same level of ultimate pause. I meant the same level of creating a dichotomy for a clause ending in X.<br /><br />zakef and tipcha stand on the same level, differing by distance from the etnachta or silluk.<br /><br />tevir, revii, and pashta stand on the same level in marking a dichotomy in a clause ending in tipcha, differing only in distance from the tipcha.<br /><br />See <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=BssOAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA28&ots=faGKG-QTOO&dq=wickes%20cantillation&pg=PA89#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">Wickes' chapter on tipcha</a> for more info on this.<br /><br />So why would you say that it simply isn't true?<br /><br />As to the rest, I don't have the presence of mind at the moment to look it over and see if we are saying the same thing or not. Bli neder, I will look it over later.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-60378373419177058902011-12-14T16:39:08.318-05:002011-12-14T16:39:08.318-05:00>> He is stating (assuming that he works pre...>> 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. <<<br />>> I am not so convinced that, with his understanding of הלזה, the revii is so inappropriate. <<<br /><br />I don't believe he is saying that revia and tevir are on the same level. That simply isn't true. He is saying that the word Henei and Halazeh are connected, and the posuk is really saying "Hinei Halazeh, Baal Hachalomos Ba" - Behold, over there, in that place, the Baal HaChalomos is coming. So Hinei and Halazeh are connected.<br />Thus he claims that revia is the wrong trup because it would be the first major dichotomy within the tipcha clause and would result in too great of a pause between Hinei and Halazeh, when the two words truly need to be connected.<br />With a geresh, a lower level trup, the two words become connected: Hineh (Baal Hachalomos) | Halazeh || Ba.<br />So that's why he can't use revia-darga-tevir-tipcha here; revia would not be connected to Halazeh in that case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com