[HANASHIR:5175] Re: Kol Hanshemah

[Joel Siegel <siegeljd...>]

SingingGr8 (at) aol(dot)com wrote:

> I teach music three days a week and have been teaching both the more
> traditional version (the one that was recently recorded on the last DF CD)
> and a newer version  of Kol Ha-n'shamah.  The version that i most recently
> taught starts with shiru and although i am not sure who wrote it the kids
> love it (a friend taught it to me)
>
> Anyway, as I was teaching today I was corrected on my hebrew which suprised
> me because i assumed it was kol hanishamah both because that was the way it
> was taught to me and also because there is the slow version which says the
> word "hanshamah" as "hanishamah" ....i looked it up and the person who
> corrected me was right.
>
> I felt this need to tell everyone here about this because it is important
> that we are teaching the hebrew right and this is something i always heard
> wrong.  so the word should be pronounced as it is in the more trad song
> "Hallelu" and not in the more modern song "kol Hanishamah"

Would that it were that simple ("hal'vai!")  You have, perhaps unwittingly and
perhaps unwillingly, entered into one of the more arcane and esoteric (IMHO)
areas of Hebrew grammar, the Sh'va na' ("moving sh'va") and Sh'va nach
("resting sh'va).  (Some might even call it pilpulistic, but when has that
ever stopped us?)  The sh'va nach is a true full stop (as in the first
syllable of Yis-ra-el.)  The sh'va na' is pronounced, however.... a bit like
"eh," a bit like "ih," and perhaps even a bit like "uh."  You see it at the
beginning of words (b'chol, l'dor, v'ahavta) and various other places as well.

Technically, as Spiro points out (HAFTARAH CHANTING, at 87-88; this is the
only reason I am as up on the subject as I am, having looked in it last night
during the Haftara Qadma discussion).... a sh'va na' (and its accompanying
consonant) is treated as a "semi-syllable" but it's simpler to regard it as a
full syllable.

Anyway, one of those "various other places" a sh'va na' appears is under a
letter with a dagesh.... and letters that follow the definite article have a
dagesh (at least I think it's a dagesh, rather than one of those other dots.)
And so indeed, if you look at the last verse of Psalm 150, behold: the nun in
Han'shama has a dagesh.

The upshot: Han(i)shama is technically more correct, probably, than Han-shama.

At least, I'm *fairly* sure that's correct.  There are other shards deeply
buried in the dark recesses of my memory about other rules that come into play
regarding the letter after the definite article, as well as funky things that
sometimes happen with "weak" letters like Nun (which of course is the letter
after the definite article in Han'shama.)  If they change things, I'm sure
someone on the list will know.

And then there's the sh'va m'rachef, which..... but we won't go there.


> Any comments to why we have been singing it wrong or if maybe i am really
> wrong now would be great.

Well, that's probably more information than you bargained for, but it's my
best shot.  Spiro is certainly not exhaustive on the subject (nor does he
intend to be), rather he gives a quick practical 2-page summary.... but it was
the reference that was handy and probably OK for present purposes.

btw, the Sh'va under the first Lamed in Hal'lu is also a sh'va na'.  So the
word should be pronouned Hal'lu (or hal(i)lu or hal(eh)lu, however you want to
transliterate it.....) but certainly not ha-lay-lu, as some do.

Remember, though: I'm not a grammarian ... I just play one on TV.

Joel

------------------------ hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org -----------------------+