[b-hebrew] About Dagesh's
if at math.bu.edu
Thu Jun 19 20:19:45 EDT 2008
Some Hebrew grammar books say that the piel form is for XIZUQ HA-P(UL-
AH, the strengthening of the action, to wit, $ABAR is plain 'broke',
but $IBER is 'broke to pieces'. I don't see any justification or
basis for this interpretation. It is only because of the multiple
meanings of DABAR that we use DIBER for 'spoke'.
In present-day Hebrew the piel form is used to extend the meaning of
a word, for instance, $AMAR is 'guarded', but $IMER is 'conserved'.
RAXAQ is 'distanced himself', while RIXEQ is 'pushed something or
someone away'. $ATAQ is 'was silent', $ITEQ is 'paralyzed', and HI-
$TIQ is 'silenced something or someone'.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Jun 19, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Vadim Cherny wrote:
> Piel has general semantics of a command, strong action. Why not
> consider a parallel in milspeak which strengthens the second
> consonant and reduces the first vowel? That's exactly what we see
> in piel: davar - [d'vvvvAar!!!] - d'ber - diber.
> Vadim Cherny
> Isaac Fried wrote:
>> It is conceivable that the dagesh in middle radical of the piel
>> and the pual forms are just vestiges of a hinting system preceding
>> the nikud. I can imagine the public Torah reader or the local
>> teacher placing a discreet central dot, pertaining to the entire
>> word, in, say, the B of $BR of Exodus 9:25
>> ואת כל עשב השדה הכה הברד ואת כל עץ
>> השדה שבּר
>> in order to remember to read it $IBER and not $ABAR.
>> Similarly, a dot was placed in the B of TB(U of Exodus 15:4
>> ומבחר שלשיו טבּעו בים סוף
>> to remember to read it as TUB(U, not TAB(U.
>> The nakdanim incorporated this hinting system in the nikud and the
>> result is what we have today.
>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>> On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:06 PM, Isaac Fried wrote:
>>> Allow me to write V for a soft bet, and B for a hard. Also, F for a
>>> soft pe and P for a hard. Recall also that $ is shin.
>>> So we have in Hebrew DAVAR, 'thing, word', but also DABAR, 'leader,
>>> speaker'. We have NAFAX, 'blew', but also NAPAX, 'blacksmith'.
>>> I do not know why there is a dagesh in the middle radical of the
>>> form, but does it practically matter now if we write NI$EK,
>>> without a dagesh in the $? Those who pretend to read it NI$-$EK
>>> delude themselves. I think that BK"P became hard thereby only
>>> incidentally, but now we are stuck with this phenomenon and need to
>>> say DIBER, not DIVER.
>>> Look at the word KAF, 'palm of the hand'. 'My hand' is KAPI. Why is
>>> the pe now dgusha? Because, say the grammar books, the word is from
>>> the root KPP. So what? Does this have to turn an F into a P?
>>> Conclusion: The less you explain the better off you are.
>>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>>> On Jun 16, 2008, at 9:43 PM, Yakov Hadash wrote:
>>>> On Jun 16, 2008, at 8:11 PM, Isaac Fried wrote:
>>>>> We will need to keep the dot, the "dagesh qal", in the letters
>>>>> bet, kaf, pe to distinguish between their "hard" and "soft"
>>>>> manifestation. Otherwise, the dagesh is redundant in plain speech.
>>>> Yeah but you didn't address my issue.
>>>> Without the dagesh hazak, there is no way of explaining a lot of
>>>> confusing issues with vocalizing Hebrew, especially with פיעל
>>>> and התפעל, which have dagesh hazak as part of the stem.
>>>> Do you want people to just not be able to know why there's a noun
>>>> "davar" and a verb "medabber" (and not "davar" and "medaver")?
>>> b-hebrew mailing list
>>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew