Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ibn Ezra · Torah
Ibn Ezra on Genesis 40:2/אבן עזרא על בראשית מ׳:ב׳
אבעבור שלא ישתנה סמ"ך סריסיו הוא לאות כי היה הרי"ש ראוי להדגש ונקמץ הסמ"ך בקמץ גדול לחסרון הדגש:
1The fact that the samekh of sarisav (his officers) retains its kamatz is proof that the resh of saris (officer) should have received a dagesh, and since it cannot the samekh was vocalized with a long kamatz to compensate for the missing dagesh.2 beneath their first letter in the singular are vocalized with a sheva under their first letter in the plural; i.e., nagid becomes negidim. Saris does not follow this rule. Its plural is sarisim, not serisim. Hence the word presents a problem. I.E. suggests that saris belongs to the group of nouns vocalized pattach-chirik. The latter retain their pattach in the plural; i.e., kabbir becomes kabbirim. I.E. points out that saris should have been vocalized with a pattach beneath the samekh but due to the fact that a resh cannot receive a dagesh (a dagesh usually follows a pattach), the samekh was vocalized with a kamatz to compensate for the missing dagesh. Hence saris retains its kamatz in the plural.