For example, should Biblical Aramaic אַנְתְּה 'you (m.sg.)' be read as Ɂant or Ɂantə? (Yes, there's an extra ה at the end and yes, the Masoretes read shwa as a full vowel, not [ə]; that's all not relevant right now, you know what I mean.) 2/6
We can actually tell that no vowel was read in these cases from the lack of spirantization of following consonants. In #Daniel 4:15, for example, the vocalization has וְאַ֨נְתְּה בֵּלְטְשַׁאצַּ֜ר wə-Ɂant bēlṭəšaṣṣar and וְאַ֣נְתְּה כָּהֵ֔ל wə-Ɂant kāhēl. 3/6
The plosives b and k change to fricatives ḇ and ḵ if a vowel immediately precedes, even across word boundaries. So if it were **Ɂantə, we should get **wə-Ɂantə ḇēlṭəšaṣṣar 'and you, Belteshazzar' and **wə-Ɂantə ḵāhēl 'and you are able'. Which we don't. 4/6
So, word-final shwa just marks that the consonant should be pronounced (unlike e.g. the א in Hebrew שָׁוְא šāw 'falsehood'), not that a reduced vowel follows. Q.E.D. 5/6
Incidentally, the picture attached to the first tweet in this thread is a reference to Takamitsu Muraoka's paper 'Much Ado About Nothing? A Sore Point or Two of Hebrew Grammarians', in which he shows that the shwa sign consistently marks the absence of a phonemic vowel. 🤐 6/6
