Comparing music to music 2

In my first post on these two verses of Psalm 1, I ask the reader to identify the musical motif for the accents in the Burns interpretation.

I have tried to id a few of them here. Some are similar for the repeated accents, revia (bar1, 24, and 28), and ole-veyored (bar 4-5, and 25-6), but the munah are each different (bar 10 and 15). The revia-mugrash in bar 20 is treated as if it were similar to a revia but a fourth higher in verse 4. It is equal in shape to the revia but at a different pitch. The method Burns has programmed is nearing some transposition of motifs but not based on the clarity of rationale that Haïk-Vantoura has demonstrated.

I would cavil about emphasis too and underlay. I don't know why, in this tradition, that the accent doesn't go with the syllable it is on, (I know there are rules, but rules can become contorted to fit a presumption). It might be that some consider that a word is stressed incorrectly by the accent. Perhaps there were variations in stress over time and space for Hebrew just as there can be for any other language or dialect.

I am particularly baffled by the 10 instances of merkha. They all seem to be rendered by different musical patterns. Two of the ten can be explained away by the ole veyorev. I suspect that some of the melismas (slurs) are omitted under various conditions. I would not be able to say why. It is interesting that there is a little convergence harmonically here. The merkha seems to prefer the supertonic in both traditions.

I have marked the accented syllables in red below and the notes associated with the syllable in red. There seems to be no consistency in interpreting the merkha.
אַ֥שְֽׁרֵי־הָאִ֗ישׁ‬ אֲשֶׁ֤ר ׀ לֹ֥א הָלַךְ֮ בַּעֲצַ֪ת רְשָׁ֫עִ֥ים
וּבְדֶ֣רֶךְ חַ֭טָּאִים לֹ֥א עָמָ֑ד
וּבְמוֹשַׁ֥ב לֵ֝צִ֗ים לֹ֣א יָשָֽׁב
f# e rev,C f# zar,d ole,f# B g f# ^A f# ger-rev,B e 1

f#-mer e-sil rev,C-mph f#-mer zar,d-gal ole,f#-mer B-mun g-tif f#-mer ^A-atn f#-mer ger-rev,B-mun e-sil 1
כִּ֤י אִ֥ם בְּתוֹרַ֥ת יְהוָ֗ה חֶ֫פְצ֥וֹ
וּֽבְתוֹרָת֥וֹ יֶהְגֶּ֗ה יוֹמָ֥ם וָלָֽיְלָה
C f# f# rev,ole,f# e f# rev,f# e 1C-mph f#-mer f#-mer rev,ole,f#-mer e-sil f#-mer rev,f#-mer e-sil 1
Incidentally, I expect that the selection by SHV of the supertonic for merkha was influenced by the ole veyorev.

I think I have reached the end of my desire to follow this variation on tradition any further. I have to admit that having heard this psalm repeatedly, I can now follow the melodic aspects more easily. I have picked up the shovel and the pick. I have stuck my feet in the miry pit, but I think I will stay out of it. Burns is deep and has some limited approaches to harmonic variation. Jacobson was simpler, but more monochrome than Burns, who moves, perhaps a step, toward a variable reciting note. It is nothing like the harmonic movement when the reciting note is allowed to vary as designed and as sung. For the role of each reciting note, see my suggestions here.