D1 often

How did Yeivin determine that Rule D1 is not obeyed in manuscripts in which vocal shewa is often made explicit? To answer that question, we first need to know: what does it even mean for this rule to be obeyed in such manuscripts? I ask this second, more basic question because in my interpretation at least, this rule’s purpose is to resolve the ambiguity surrounding the “vocality” of simple shewa, but in many cases these manuscripts have no such ambiguity, due to their use of ḥaṭef.

In words where a vocal shewa sound is already explicitly called for, i.e. in words where ḥaṭef is used, it is in some sense “unfair” to expect a gaʿya to redundantly call for a vocal shewa sound. So it is not surprising that, as Yeivin documents here and elsewhere, we don’t consistently find such redundancy.

The more interesting words are ones in which only simple shewa is used. In such words, the question becomes: which of the following is true?

1. Does simple shewa mean silent shewa in all (or at least most) of these words?
2. Or, is simple shewa ambiguous in these words, as it is in manuscripts that rarely make vocal shewa explicit?

As Yeivin documents here and elsewhere, unfortunately the answer is number 2: although in these manuscripts ḥaṭef is often used to unambiguously notate a vocal shewa sound, simple shewa is still used ambiguously in these manuscripts in the circumstances under discussion: on the FIP.

Let’s return to the basic question of what Yeivin means when he says that Rule D1 is not obeyed in manuscripts in which vocal shewa is often made explicit. What he means, initially at least, is the following:

1. “Unfair” or not, for words with ḥaṭef, he means that Rule D1 is not obeyed because the redundant gaʿya is sometimes absent. The relevant examples here are נְגַשֲׁשָׁ֤ה and שֹׁדֲדִ֛ים.
2. For words with simple shewa, he means that Rule D1 is not obeyed because sometimes gaʿya is present. The relevant example here is לְשִֽׁמְמ֥וֹת.
   • It is somewhat strange to say that Rule D1 is not obeyed in such cases.
   • Rule D1 is not obeyed only if we assume, temporarily, that simple shewa means silent shewa in such words.
   • It is fine to make such assumptions, temporarily, for the purposes of argument, and indeed that is I think what Yeivin is doing, but he does not make that clear.
   • Yeivin does an external consistency check on לְשִֽׁמְמ֥וֹת, using the ḥaṭef of μL20 to determine that the simple shewa of לְשִֽׁמְמ֥וֹת is likely vocal. On that basis, לְשִֽׁמְמ֥וֹת obeys D1!

So Yeivin’s examples merely show that manuscripts like μA don’t obey D1 “naively,” by which I mean that they don’t obey D1 assuming that simple shewa means silent shewa. But, the real question is whether Rule D1 is obeyed in these words without assuming that simple shewa means silent shewa. The answer is that Rule D1 is not obeyed in that way either. Yeivin implicitly provides that answer when he goes on to give Rule D2.