[b-hebrew] Again on hireq/sere
if at math.bu.edu
Fri Apr 15 07:11:51 EDT 2011
What I mean is that you may remove all (ALL!) the dgeshim and you
will not miss them. The dgeshim were used, methinks, as reading props
much earlier than the NIQUYD and they became superfluous with the
introduction of the punctuation. The NAKDANIYM left them in place out
of reverence for a much older tradition.
1. YAMIYM in Gen. 4:3 is punctuated by a qamatz, while in Ps. 8:9 it
is punctuated by a patax.
2. DAMIYM in Ex. 4:25 is punctuated by a qamatz. The dagesh in BATIYM
is, indeed, unusual.
3. SUSIYM in 2Sam. 15:1 is indeed without the expected dagesh, but
SUS is always written with a middle W (here is the only place it is
written lacking), a W which is possibly lost here.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Apr 15, 2011, at 1:43 AM, Pere Porta wrote:
> 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)
> 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