More than a few dozen disjunctives without the expected gaʿya

My research disagrees with this estimate of a few dozen. I find 133 disjunctives without the expected gaʿya. This is far more than could be called a few dozen. This discrepancy probably comes from one or more of the following sources:

• Maybe my base text differs significantly from that of ITM. In particular, maybe its use of gaʿya differs significantly. (My base text is MAM.)
• Maybe my interpretation of ambiguous marks differs significantly from that of ITM. In particular, maybe one or more of the following differs significantly:
  • Which shewa marks are considered vocal, and which silent.
  • Which begad-kefat dagesh marks are considered ḥazaq, and which qal.
  • Which qameṣ marks are considered gadol, and which qaṭan.
  • Which ḥireq marks are considered gadol, and which qaṭan.
  (Except for ḥireq, my interpretation of ambiguous marks comes from Al-Hatorah and MAM. For ḥireq, for the moment I use the approximation that it is gadol only in full spellings, i.e. gadol only if followed by a non-consonantal yod, and qaṭan otherwise.)
• Maybe my placement of stress differs significantly from that of ITM. The placement of stress is only obvious for an impositive accent. It is not obvious for an accent such as the prepositive telisha gedolah or the postpositive pashṭa. Nor is it obvious for certain paired poetic accents. (My placement of stress comes from MAM.)
• Maybe my definition of “a disjunctive without the expected gaʿya” differs significantly from that of ITM.

I’ll expand on that final possible source of discrepancy between me and ITM. The definition of “a disjunctive without the expected gaʿya” may, at first glance, seem clear, but there are some gray areas. Should a word like אֲֽשֶׁר־לַדְּבִ֖יר be counted as an FR1 disjunctive without the expected gaʿya? For sure, it does lack a gaʿya in the expected location: it lacks a gaʿya on שֶׁר , the main part of the closed, short-vowelled syllable two before the stress. But, as covered in #333, this likely reflects a preference (at least in this word) for gaʿya on shewa over the expected gaʿya. A word pointed according to this preference is not as strong an exception to the rule as a word that has no gaʿya marks anywhere, like the FR3 words אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲבֹ֖ר and אֲשֶׁר־תַּעֲשֶׂ֑ה . Should an exception of any “strength” be counted, or only the starkest exceptions? I find that 31 of the 133 disjunctives without the expected gaʿya nonetheless have a gaʿya elsewhere. Some additional examples are בְּאֶֽרֶץ־הַצְּבִ֖י (FR1) וַיִּֽנְהֲג֔וּ (FR2), and וַיְנַֽאֲפוּ֙ (FR3).

How should we count words having a secondary accent where we would expect a gaʿya? E.g., should a word like וְלִ֨בְהֶמְתְּךָ֔ be counted as an FR2 disjunctive without the expected gaʿya, or does the metigah function as the expected gaʿya? I find that 6 of the 133 disjunctives without the expected gaʿya nonetheless have a metigah where we would expect a gaʿya. Also, in two cases I find a merka (paired with azla legarmeh) where we would expect a gaʿya: יִ֥תְיַצְּב֨וּ׀ (FR1) and עַ֥ל־נַהֲר֨וֹת׀ (FR3). But I don’t know whether this merka implies some secondary stress like a gaʿya. Stress-wise, perhaps this merka is as meaningless as a geresh muqdam. E.g., though יִ֝תְאַמְּר֗וּ (FR1) has geresh muqdam where we would expect a gaʿya, I have no reservations about counting it as an exception, since if it “wanted” a gaʿya it could have one, as in וַֽ֝יִּלְמְד֗וּ (FR2) .