[b-hebrew] Again on hireq/sere

Pere Porta pporta7 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 15 01:43:05 EDT 2011


Isaac,

what do you mean by "the dagesh is not a part of the NIQUD"?

I brought here some months ago the difference between

1. YFMIYM, days (Gn 4:3)
and
2. YAM.IYM, seas (Ps 8:9)

Why the dagesh does not belong to the niqud?

We have

1. DFMIYM, bloods (Ex 4:25) (no dagesh) and

2. BFT.IYM, houses (Ex 1:21) (dagesh).

We have SWSIYM, horses (2Sa 15:1) (no dagesh) versus DWB.IYM, bears (2K
2:24) (dagesh).

And there are many more like these...

How do you explain this if the dagesh is not a part of the niqud?
Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)


2011/4/15 Isaac Fried <if at math.bu.edu>

> A hirek is followed by a dagesh. The dagesh ("forte") is, in my opinion, no
> more than an ancient cue for the hireq, as in IWER, 'blind'. In other words,
> the dagesh is not a part of the NIQUD.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
>  On Apr 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Pere Porta wrote:
>
>   Are there in Hebrew nouns, adjectives,
>
> adverbs... having ONLY a hireq in their first syllable and a sere in their
>
> second syllable (no dagesh, no shewa, no patah furtivum... at all!)?
>
>
>


-- 
Pere Porta



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list