Column #108. Contents of this weekly column are (mostly) based on the sefer: EIM LAMIKRA HASHALEIM, by R' Nissan Sharoni, Ashdod, a guide to correct pronunciation of Hebrew, specifically in davening and Torah reading.

As readers of this feature know, we often get email reactions (or faxes) from one of several DIKDUK experts who help us fine-tune the lessons contained in TBDATR.

Following last week's piece on DNA (double nasog achor), we heard from not one, not two, but THREE of the biggies. And so we shall share some of their words with you in this week's column.

YL writes (he was the first one, so we're putting his comments first)...
ne-er-MU (the MILRA, "normal" form of NE-er-mu) is a NIF'AL form from AYIN-REISH-MEM, like nich-T'VU (from KAF-TAV-BET), except that the first root letter is an AYIN, a guttural letter. Instead of ne'-R'-MU (paralleling nich-T'-VU, the SH'VA NACH that should appear under the AYIN becomes (stage 1) a SHVA NA'. But it can't stay that way because the following letter, REISH already has a SHVA NA'. So (stage 2) it expands, becomes a SEGOL and drags the REISH back to it, to close the syllable, hence ne-'er-MU. That middle "syllable" is merely a "virtual" syllable - amongst other things, it can never be stressed. For purposes of the TA'AM, ne-'er-MU remains a two-syllable word, as it were, and in a NASOG ACHOR situation, the TA'AM withdraws from MU to NE, not a double jump, a single one, because the middle "syllable" isn't really a syllable.

The exact same arrangement applies to ya-'am-DU becoming under NASOG ACHOR conditions - YA-'am-du (MA-yim) - the middle "syllable" ('am) is only a virtual one generated by - you got it - the AYIN (see explanation above).

Here's what DK/BE wrote...
Why do "YA-am-du MA-yim" in BARCHI NAFSHI, and "NE-er-mu MA-yim" in SHIRAT HAYAM each have a DNA? Here's an explanation suggested to me once by Prof. Martin Lockshin of York Univ. in answer to a different question: Why isn't NASOG ACHOR applied to "ha-VU GO-del" in D'varim 32:3 (the pasuk we say before the Musaf, Mincha, and Ne'ila Amida).

A syllable with a CHATAF-vowel is NEVER emphasized. ("never" means stam never. "NEVER" capitalized means "really NEVER - NO EXCEPTIONS!") ML suggested that a syllable, which according to the rules of DIKDUK should have received a CHATAF-vowel, but didn't - like "ha" in "ha-VU GO-del" (or from last week's column, "am" in "YA-am-du MA-yim" or "er" in "NE-er-mu MA-yim"), also cannot be emphasized. Such "syllables" are not treated as syllables, and are skipped over when rules of DIKDUK, such as NASOG ACHOR, are applied.

OK, Phil here. Let's go over this in different words. If NASOG ACHOR is "called for", because the next word is of one syllable, or of two syllables with the accent MIL'EIL, then we must check the next to the last syllable for suitability to receive the receding accent. In the case of ha-VU, the ha syllable is not able to receive the accent, because, since the HEI should have been voweled by a CHATAF-KAMATZ, the fact that it has an actual KAMATZ does not change the fact that as a syllable, it cannot be accented. Since there are no more syllables to consider, the word remains MILRA and NASOG ACHOR does not take place. But with ne-er-MU and ya-am-DU, the next to the last syllable is not a candidate for the accent (as explained above) and there is another syllable to look at - namely, the first of the three in each word. And since they can receive an accent, NASOG ACHOR need not be surpressed. The accent bypasses the [non-syllable or ineligible syllable, call it whichever you prefer] and ends up on the first syllable. If we are willing to say that ne-er-MU is a three-syllable word (sure looks and sounds like one), then we have DNA.

[The Parshat T'tzaveh Homepage]
[The TORAH tidbits Homepage] [How to use TORAH tidbits]
[About The OU/NCSY Israel Center] [About TORAH tidbits]
[www.ou.org]