| n | 2 |
| citation:book | Gen |
| citation:c | 43 |
| citation:v | 28 |
| citation:position | 8 |
| author:name | Ben Denckla |
| author:mail | bdenckla@alum.mit.edu |
| author:confirmed | true |
| description | Note that while creating the pointed qere, the transcriber changed a qubuts to a shuruq |
| lc:folio | Folio_027A |
| lc:column | 3 |
| lc:line | 15 |
| lc:credit | Credit: Sefaria.org. |
| reftext | וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוּֽוּ׃ |
| refuni | vav patah yod dagesh hiriq meteg shin shin-dot sheva tav dagesh patah het hataf-patah vav dagesh meteg vav dagesh sof-pasuq |
| changetext | וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוּֽוּ׃ |
| changeuni | vav patah yod dagesh hiriq meteg shin shin-dot sheva tav dagesh patah het hataf-patah vav dagesh meteg vav dagesh sof-pasuq |
| notes:note | The manuscript’s pointed ketiv (MPK) is וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוֻּֽ׃. |
| notes:note-2 | The qubuts in the MPK becomes a shuruq dot in the qere. |
| notes:note-3 | In WLC, this word has not only an a-note but also a 1-note, presumably because of the unexpected dagesh in the qere’s next-to-last vav. |
| notes:note-4 | As a reminder, a WLC 1-note (bracket-1 note) is defined as follows: |
| notes:note-5 | «BHS has been faithful to ל [...] where there might be a question of the validity of the form and we keep the same form as BHS. (This is similar to the note “]U”, but the latter refers to cases where BHQ has been published and we keep the same form as both BHS and BHQ.)» |
| notes:note-6 | Although Dotan has a note about this ketiv/qere, I do not take him to have noted it for the issue at hand: the qubuts-to-shuruq issue. I take him to have noted this ketiv/qere only for the unexpected dagesh in the last vav of the MPK. (This implies a dagesh in the qere’s next-to-last vav.) |
| notes:note-7 | I do not think Dotan finds the qubuts-to-shuruq issue notable because he does not note the similar ketiv/qere in gn27:29 words 3 and 4, וישתחו/וְיִֽשְׁתַּחֲו֤וּ. That gn27:29 ketiv/qere has the same qubuts-to-shuruq pattern as this one except the next-to-last vav of its qere is free of a dagesh, as expected, and therefore Dotan finds nothing notable about it. |
| notes:note-8 | We know that Dotan finds the dagesh notable because he notes gn27:29 word 10, וְיִשְׁתַּחֲוּ֥וּ, a normal (non-qere) word that is analogous to this qere, including having an unexpected dagesh in its next-to-last vav. |
| transnotes:transnote:action | Add |
| transnotes:transnote:type | a |
| transnotes:transnote:beforetext | וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוּֽ |
| status | Pending |
| type | NoTextChange |