Shemos 18:9 starts off with the word "vayichadd" -- the final dalet
having a dagesh and a shva.
Apologies if this is a simple question:
what is that? Why does the word need that as an ending?
Shavua tov!
-- Sholom
As an early rishon (IIRC, R Yonah ibn Jannah) said, this is basically the same form as ???
However, the sh'wa under the shin becomes a pasach under the influence of the chet.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels@ou.org
I was m'qattzer, but Iintended to answer Sholom's question. The dagesh is qal, just as in
???, and the sh'wa is the same in both words. The underlying vowel of the chet is a sh'wa nach, which appears as a pasach because of the influence of the chet.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels@ou.org
I just noticed that this reply went to R Sholom rather than the list.
I now see that others have given the same answer
Shemos 18:9 starts off with the word "vayichadd" -- the final dalet
having a dagesh and a shva.Apologies if this is a simple question: what is that? Why does the
word need that as an ending?
I assume that it's similar to such words as "vayishb", "vayesht",
and "vayevk", where the final letter, which would normally be rafeh,
is to be pronounced with a dagesh. Here too, the word is pronounced
"vayichad" rather than "vayichadh", as one would expect. I imagine
that if chet were not guttural the word would be "vayichd", like all
the others, but since that's difficult to pronounce with a guttural
the chet got an extra patach.
The sheva under the final letter is to emphasise that it's not silent.
Vowel-less letters are usually silent, except at the end of a word;
but since these words end in *two* letters one might think that one
of them is silent, so they both get shevas. In this case the first
sheva became a patach, so you'd think the second one can disappear,
but it stayed.
At least that's my supposition.
What about the sh'wa in the bet/daled? I've always assumed they were nach and exceptions to the rules of (a) two sh'wa in a row, first is nach second is na and (b) anything with a dagesh and a sh'wa also being sh'wa na. Is that correct
While on that subject, what about the two sh'was in Rus 2:19 in Likatt (lamed, kuf, tes, tof). Are they also two sh'wa nachs? And if so, how can that be done with the tes and a tof? I cannot help but make the first one (the tes) a sh'wa na.
Yaakov Gorlin
What about the sh'wa in the bet/daled? I've always assumed they were
nach and exceptions to the rules of (a) two sh'wa in a row, first is
nach second is na and (b) anything with a dagesh and a sh'wa also
being sh'wa na. Is that correct
It must be. By definition a sheva na` is one that starts a syllable,
i.e. precedes a "real" vowel. A sheva nach is one that ends a syllable.
That's not a "rule", it's a definition, so it can have no exceptions,
(except shtei/shtayim, that is 
) The final letter of a word obviously
ends a syllable, despite any so-called "rule" to the contrary.
While on that subject, what about the two sh'was in Rus 2:19 in
Likatt (lamed, kuf, tes, tof). Are they also two sh'wa nachs? And
if so, how can that be done with the tes and a tof? I cannot help
but make the first one (the tes) a sh'wa na
AIUI tes is a palatal T, as in "cattle", while tof is a dental T
as in "ten". With some practice you can pronounce a palatal T
and then immediately slide your tongue to your teeth for a dental T,
with no discernable vowel between them.