[b-hebrew] Someone knows?

Pere Porta pporta7 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 18 02:11:44 EDT 2011


Isaac,

I remark in you some rebellion or disdain or contempt of the "official"
spellings.

You should deepen more into these "official" spellings, namely those of the
Academy of the Hebrew Language (and not those of Wikipedia).

In the hasar haniqud, )M) takes a yud  -)YM)-, yes.

But (MH (Rt 1:7), )TH (Rt 1:18); LBH (1Sm 1:13) and many others take NO yud.

We all -me, Pere, included-  need a cure of humility, Isaac.

Concerning you proposal of keeping the dagesh even in the usual unpointed
 Israeli script, have you followed these last times the debate on the Reform
of the Hebrew writing, which debate was born just inside the Academy and was
started by M. Mishor ( himself a member of the Academy)?

Heartly,

Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)




2011/4/17 Isaac Fried <if at math.bu.edu>

>  I would say HA-KTIYB XASAR HA-NIYQUD V-XASAR HADIGU$, since the DIYGU$
> is, in my opinion, independent of the NIYKUD.
>
> I think that the custom today is to routinely insert a yod after an
> unmarked xireq (leading to such disagreeable "official" spellings as אימא
> 'mother'), albeit with some exceptions. See here for the "rules":
>
>
>
> http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%91_%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%A8_%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%93
>
> In fact, here:
>
>
> http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/k/k0417.htm
>
>
> the unpunctuated word HAMITEM of Nu. 17:6 is written with a yod, thus:
> המיתם
>
>
> In Nu. 17:6 HAMITEM has a (in my opinion, pre-NIYQUD) dagesh in the letter
> T to recall the xireq under the letter M, suggesting, by the antiquity of
> the dagesh, that the word was "always" lacking a yod.
>
> If I were younger I would start a campaign for the restoration of the
> dgeshim system in the KTIYB XASAR HA-NIYQUD, as it was in ancient times,
> before the invention of the NIYQUD, thus: אמּא .
>
>
> In 1Sa 2:25 LAHAMIYTAM lacks a dagesh in the T since the word is written
> in full with a yod after the xireq. The yod hints to the xireq, making a
> further dagesh hinter unnecessary, suggesting, by the antiquity of the
> dagesh, that the word was "always" written with a yod.
>
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
>
>  On Apr 16, 2011, at 12:10 AM, Pere Porta wrote:
>
>   We have in Nm 17:6 the verbal form HAMIT.EM, you killed.
>
> If we were to write this word in today Israeli script (the pointless one,
> hasar haniqud), must we include a YUD between M and T?
>
> I mean: should the written word take the form of the last word in 1Sa 2:25
> (of course, without points and without the prefixed lamed)?
>
> Kind regards from
>
> Pere Porta
> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>
>
> --
> Pere Porta
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>


-- 
Pere Porta



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list