HF$IBBO:LIYM (?) -- Gen. 41.24
churchh at usa.net
Tue Sep 26 11:46:58 EDT 2000
> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:07:24 +0100
> From: ben.crick at argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick)
> Subject: Re: HF$IBBO:LIYM (?) -- Gen. 41.24
> On Sat 23 Sep 2000 (01:26:48), language_lover64801 at yahoo.com wrote:
>> the form HF$IBBO:LIYM in Genesis 41.24. Is there a specific reason
>> for there being no daghesh in the shin? 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.
Hmmm, an interesting attempt at a phonogical explanation, but the
proposed phonological constraint can't be a very strong constraint,
because there are many counterexamples (a quick and not completely
comprehensive search turned up almost 3,000 forms, from hay:ab:ASA2h
in Genesis 1:9 to hAS:am:Ah_4 in 2 Chronicles 36:21). It's also not
mentioned in Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley sec. 20-lm or sec. 35.
> There is no difference in pronunciation; how can you differentiate
> in speech between "Sh" and "ShSh"?
There certainly are langages that have a doubled "sh" shound in
speech; Arabic and Japanese spring to mind...
Henry Churchyard churchh at usa.net http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/
More information about the b-hebrew