HF$IBBO:LIYM (?) -- Gen. 41.24

Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Mon Sep 25 15:07:24 EDT 2000

On Sat 23 Sep 2000 (01:26:48), language_lover64801 at yahoo.com wrote:
> In reading the passage
> about Joseph interpreting Pharaoh's dream, our class (consisting of two
> students and the teacher *smile*) came across the form HF$IBBO:LIYM in
> Genesis 41.24.  Is there a specific reason for there being no daghesh
> in the shin?  One more thing: in the Leningrad tradition, there _is_ a
> daghesh
> and a patakh.  We use the BHS in class and this is the one in which the
> daghesh is missing and the vowel of the heh is a qamets (A --> F).  Is
> there an explanation for such a difference in tradition and what is the
> significance of the BHS reading?

 Briefly, Jason, it is because Hebrew does not like two adjacent letters
 both doubled with daghesh forte. For reasons of euphony, the first daghesh
 forte drops out. There is no difference in pronunciation; how can you
 differentiate in speech between "Sh" and "ShSh"?  The Ephraimites' problem in
 Judges 12:6 was differentiating Sin and Shin...

 Both occurrences of the word lack the daghesh forte in the Shin, in my
 electronic text (BHS, vierte verbesserte Auflage 1967-77). But both
 occurrences of the word have the daghesh in the Shin in my printed copy of
 Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, 11th Edition (Kahle, Alt & Eissfeldt).

 Revd Ben Crick, BA CF
 <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk>
 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list