[b-hebrew] hiriq, tzereh, dagesh
if at math.bu.edu
Fri Apr 15 18:26:19 EDT 2011
You are right. The thought that the dagesh is an ancient diacritical
marking independent of the NIKUD is indeed but a theory. There is not
a shred of evidence to the "exact opposite" claim that the dagesh
marks an obsolete (and apparently bizarre) vocal doubling of a
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Apr 15, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:
> in deciding whether the dagesh is essential to hebrew or not,
> the first question is if it is older than the early 7th century
> AD where the arabic dagesh was introduced. but even if it is
> older, it would reflect first millenium AD and not first millenium
> BC hebrew. so, isaac, if your question is about BH then your
> conjecture has nothing to rely on and is as good as the exact
> also, the linguistic elements do not serve only the context. often
> they grow in contrast to a neighboring dialect. according to a well
> known joke, you may change in modern english all d to t, all sh to
> sch, all c to k, all u to au etc causing little damage. but at the
> end you will get german instead of english.
>>>> Para: Pere Porta <pporta7 at gmail.com>
> Data: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:11:51 -0400
> Assunto: Re: [b-hebrew] Again on hireq/sere
> 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?
>> 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.
>> 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!)?
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew