Sunday, September 1, 2019

ashkenazi - What does the munach say?


I'm asking according to Ashkenazi leining. The trop mark i have trouble with is the munach. It has two different sounds - a sort of "shaky" sound when it's on its own, and a sort of nothing sound when it is in the middle of a sequence.


A sequence goes like this: מהפך פשטא מנח זקף-קטן; מֵרְכָ֥א טִפְּחָ֖א מֻנַּ֣ח אֶתְנַחְתָּ֑א; מֻנַּ֣ח רְבִ֗יע.


A standalone munach looks something like: מֻנַּ֣ח | מֻנַּ֣ח רְבִ֗יע; מֻנַּ֣ח מֻנַּ֣ח פָּזֵ֡ר.


Those are all easy.



My problem is with something like this: מַהְפַּ֤ך פַּשְׁטָא֙ מֻנַּ֣ח מֻנַּ֣ח זָקֵף-קָטָ֔ן. How do you pronounce each munach? Sometimes i pronounce them both as if they are in the sequence; sometimes i'll make the first on its own and the second connected to the קטן.


How about this one? מֵרְכָ֥א מֻנַּ֣ח אֶתְנַחְתָּ֑א. That's pretty confusing for me.


Or מֻנַּ֣ח זַרְקָא֮ מֻנַּ֣ח מֻנַּ֣ח סֶגּוֹל֒?


מֻנַּ֣ח | רְבִ֗יע. Do i treat the munach as on its own, because of the psik, or is the psik just so i don't slur the words, and the trop is connected?



Answer



The only time the munnaḥ gets the shaky trope is when it's a munnaḥ-legarmeh, which visually looks like a munnaḥ followed by a p'siq. The munnaḥ-legarmeh is a "טעם מפסיק" (a disjunctive accent), whereas the normal munnaḥ is a "טעם משרת" (a conjunctive accent), so it makes sense to give the shaky trope only to the munnaḥ-legarmeh. See any tiqqun for a list of disjunctive and conjunctive tropes.


In the sequence munnaḥ | revi'a, munnaḥ | munnaḥ revi'a, or munnaḥ | darga munnaḥ revi'a, the first munnaḥ is always munnaḥ-legarmeh (and hence disjunctive), and the second (if it's present) is a normal munnaḥ (and hence conjunctive). The only exception is Isaiah 42:5, where the m'sora q'tanna indicates otherwise (and indeed indicates that this exception is unique).


There are a few other instances of munnaḥ-legarmeh not subservient to revi'a (or to another munnaḥ-legarmeh, itself subservient to revi'a):


Lev 10:6, Lev 21:10, and Ruth 1:2. In place of a t'lisha-qetanna before geresh (yet still a disjunctive): Gen 28:9, 1 Sam 14:3 (second one), 1 Sam 14:47, 2 Sam 13:32, 2 Kings 18:17, Isa 36:2, Jer 4:19, Jer 38:11, Jer 40:11, Ezek 9:2, Hag 2:12, and 2 Chron 26:15. R. Breuer's Ta'amei HaMiqra adds the following, before pazer: Neh 8:7 and Dan 3:2.


A few words on the exceptions: in Lev 10:6, Lev 21:10, and Ruth 1:2, the munnaḥ is preceded by a mercha, which is not normal for the pashta that follows (we'd expect another munnaḥ), but is normal for a munnaḥ-legarmeh. In the second set of exceptions, we expect a t'lisha-q'tanna, and thus there must have been an upgrade (where a normally conjunctive ta'am gets replaced by a disjunctive one), and it becomes munnaḥ-legarmeh. In 2 Kings 18:17, we see the expected conjunctive mercha before the munnach-legarmei (the Aleppo Codex has the expected mercha in Isa 36:2). In Neh 8:7, we have the expected mercha. In Dan 3:2, however, it seems like it could go either way (as munnaḥ is the normal conjunctive of pazer).



As to your examples:


munnaḥ munnaḥ pazer -- will always be normal munaḥs.


mahpaḥ pashta munnaḥ munnaḥ zaqef-qaton & munnaḥ zarqa munnaḥ munnaḥ segol -- both munnaḥs are normal munnachs, and sound identical, ie. each the same as if there were only one munnaḥ there.


mercha munnaḥ etnaḥta -- does not appear in Chumash; perhaps you meant tipḥa munnaḥ etnaḥta, whereupon in this case also the munnaḥ would be a normal munnaḥ.


The only place I've seen where some do a shaky trope on a munnaḥ that isn't a munnaḥ-legarmeh is: munnaḥ mahpaḥ pashta zaqef-qaton, and similar. I believe (and it seems that Joshua Jacobson also believes) that this would incorrect, as this munnaḥ is a conjunctive trope, and should lead in to the mahpaḥ which leads in to the pashta, instead of standing on its own.




The above is based on Rabbi Mordechai Breuer's Ta'amei HaMiqra, as well as William Wickes' work on trope, with additional sources from Chanting the Hebrew Bible by Joshua Jacobson. Major h/t to DoubleAA for corrections and additions.


No comments:

Post a Comment

digital communications - Understanding the Matched Filter

I have a question about matched filtering. Does the matched filter maximise the SNR at the moment of decision only? As far as I understand, ...