Perhaps more important than over-stressing vocalization of the na, is understanding that a na begins a syllable, whereas a nach ends one. There should be some vocalization in any case, as in distinguishing between, e.g., Vayyir-u (“They saw”) and Vayyee-r’u (“They feared”). Keep in mind that some cases of sh’va are subject to machlokes. Much of dikduk taught in America is by the German community (who fortunately do place some emphasis on dikduk in chinukh, realizing its importance), many of whom pronounce as na` a sh’va m’rachef (e.g., בגדל זרועך ) – and this also includes a m’lap[f]um ganuv (a sh’va after a shuruk which some might say could have once been pronounced by some as a vocalized semivowel) – and other sh’va-im (e.g., ועבדתם, ואבדתם ) – sometimes for tiferes hak’ria purposes. I’m not faulting those who hold this way, however we must realize that this is certainly not always l’khol hadai-os, even though at times when taught or presented, it can give that impression. Many grammarians (and I don’t limit this to ‘maskilim’ or ‘modern’ grammarians – it could easily include those such as the Gaon [G’ra] and the Rada”k in many cases) would often hold otherwise.
Menu