Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Any meaning to the Dagesh?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com>
  • To: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Any meaning to the Dagesh?
  • Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:30:56 -0500

Thank you so much for the response.

That's interesting about the Hebrew text books omitting the dageshim.

I'm a bit confused when you said "Since I am not clear about the distinction between PATAX and QAMAC, I have no ready explanation for the dagesh following PATAX."
I re-looked at my post and didn't find any occurrence of the qamac. Did you mean the hatah patax, or am I missing something?

Do anyone else have any input on the subject? I want as much feedback as possible.


B"H
John Steven

Isaac Fried wrote:

What I mean is that in my opinion the dagesh (the dagesh XAZAQ, that is) is not part of the Hebrew KIKUD system but is rather a mere ancient visual diacritical marking used to indicate the KTIB XASER. You may remove all dgeshim and nothing will change in the reading of the text, except the B K P letters that are incidentally hardened by it. I am told that some Hebrew textbooks are printed now punctuated, but sans dgeshim, except, as I said, in B K P.

Since I am not clear about the distinction between PATAX and QAMAC, I have no ready explanation for the dagesh following PATAX.


Isaac Fried, Boston University


On Feb 22, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Brak wrote:

Isaac,
What do you mean by "vocal value"?

Let me give a similar example of what I am trying to get at:
The raphe:
Say you have a completely pointed text. Then you proceed to remove all the raphe glyphs from the text. By doing so you haven't removed any data from the text that was needed in regards to translating the text - for the raphe glyphs alone doesn't provide such data. Hence most editions of the Hebrew Bible don't include the raphe glyphs.
So I am wondering if the same could be said of the dagesh glyphs. If you remove all the dagesh glyphs from the text, have you removed any data from the text that is needed in regards to translating the text?
So to use the example that Yitzhak gave:

<H:A/$OM"R> - Interrogative / Qal Participle Masculine Singular
<HA/$.OM"R> - Article / Qal Participle Masculine Singular

If you were to remove the dagesh you would still get the same meanings:
<H:A/$OM"R> - Interrogative / Qal Participle Masculine Singular
<HA/$OM"R> - Article / Qal Participle Masculine Singular

Whether or not the dagesh is present, it is still a Qal Participle Masculine Singular. Whether or not the dagesh is present, the prefix for the one is still Interrogative, the prefix for the second is still an Article.


Will this always be the case, or is there any place where the dagesh alone will effect a change on the meaning?


B"H
John Steven


Isaac Fried wrote:
If I understand you right, then you are on the right path: there is no evidence that the dagesh has any vocal value. The hardening of B K P in its presence is possibly only incidental.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 22, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Brak wrote:

I have said many time that I am not concerned with how it is pronounced.
I am only concerned with the graphic representation and meaning. I'm not
concerned that the adding of the dagesh is causing the vowel change -
the fact is that there is a vowel change. So when you say the only
difference is the dagesh you are wrong - as you have different vowels.

Again, I am asking if there is any place where you have two words (two
word-parts even) which are identical in EVERY way except in regards to
the presence/absence of one or more dagesh AND has a different meaning.

So your example with <H:A/$OM"R>/<HA/$.OM"R> fails in both ways.


B"H
John Steven.

"He who makes a mistake is still our friend; he who adds to or shortens
a melody is still our friend; but he who violates a rhythm unawares can
no longer be our friend."
-Ishaq Ibn Ibrahim 767-850 CE.

"If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you
behave."
-Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

"The difference between the intelligent man and the simpleton is not the
correctness of their decisions, but rather the cunning sinner can more
skillfully defend and justify his iniquity."
- Rabbi Tovia Singer


Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
On 2/22/09, Brak wrote:


The example you gave in Gn4:9 and Ps 146:6 of <H:A/$OM"R@Pg/vqPmsa> and
<HA/$.OM"R@Pa/vqPmsa> does not met the criteria of my question for two
reasons:
1: There is an additional change to the word beside the dagesh (as you
pointed out yourself - the HE has a hataf patah in the first word, and a
patah in the second word. This only effects the prefix of the word the first
being an interrogative, the second being an article).
2: <$OM"R> and <$.OM"R> both have the same meaning as they are both Qal
Participle Masculine Singular Absolute based on the root <$MR>.


No. The dagesh is the only difference between the two. The dagesh
conveys a difference in pronunciation. The difference between patah
and hataf patah is due to the presence of dagesh. In closed syllables,
patah is used, whereas in open syllables hataf patah is used. It is the
gemination causes the syllable to be closed. Thus, the two words are
pronounced:
ha-sho-mer - interrogative
hash-sho-mer - definite article
The only difference in pronunciation is the gemination. EVERYTHING
else is pronounced the same way. In both cases ("ha" vs. "hash")
the "a" is short. It just so happens that short a in an open syllable
is marked by a hataf patah and in a closed syllable by a regular
patah (at least in standardized manuscripts). Just because they are
marked differently, does not mean they are pronounced differently.
What therefore marks the first as an interrogative vs definite article
is the use of gemination.

Please note: the two also have different cantillation marks - but you seem
to ignore these. Why are you willing to overlook differences in cantillation
marks but not overlook differences in patah/hataf patah? All these signs
are meant to convey a system of pronunciation, but instead of looking at
pronunciation, you seem to want to look at differences in the graphical
representation of the pronunciation without trying to understand the
system and rules of the graphical representation (such as the difference
in open vs closed syllables above). In this case, I happened to find an
example where $omer was spelled defectively, without a waw. But if it
had been spelled with a waw, does that mean you would not accept the
example? Why? The waw is ignored in the vocalization, and it is only
the holam that matters.

So the answer to your question is yes. Perhaps instead of me citing more
examples, you should explain what this is all about. What is the "ultimate"
purpose of your inquiry?

Yitzhak Sapir
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page