[b-hebrew] Shabbat in construct state?

Isaac Fried if at math.bu.edu
Thu Aug 8 18:52:49 EDT 2013

1.  Evidently the dagesh comes systematically after a patax, a xiriq  
or a qubuc: the dagesh "forte" directly, and the dagesh "lene"  
shifted (why there is no dagesh in "gutturals" I am not sure.) The  
question is, then, what causes what

מה הסיבה ומה המסובב

Is the dagesh part of the niqud, or does the dagesh engender the  
niqud. I refuse the possibility that the dagesh marks "gemination".  
There is no "doubling" now, and there is no reason for it to have  
ever existed before. For what? Moreover, since this purported  
"gemination" is systematic, it should not require any special  
marking, certainly not an invasive and intrusive internal dot.

2. Questions about niqud may be difficult to answer as we have no  
clear understanding of the logical underpinning of the whole  
enterprise. What is the purpose of having a qamatz in דָּג 'fish,  
fished', but a patax in דַּג 'fish of'. Is it phonetical or is it  

3. The niqud is man-made, and in the some two hundred years from its  
inception to the earliest "masoretic" texts, opinionated (they exist  
even today) or careless scribes could have caused some slips in the  
original niqud.

4. In any event, the Eretz Israel Torah reading practice makes no  
distinction whatsoever between the patax, the qamatz and the  
xatapiym, making them all A, with the sense of the text left immutable.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Aug 8, 2013, at 12:15 AM, AMK Judaica wrote:

> Isaac:
> Thank you for responding.
> 1) Is there any evidence for what you write about the dagesh?
> 2) Regardless, I don't see how that explains the different pointing  
> of שבת in the two verses.
> Thank you,
> Ari
> **********
> Ari Kinsberg
> MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
> Brooklyn, New York
> **************
> Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.
> CC: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> From: if at math.bu.edu
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Shabbat in construct state?
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 00:08:11 -0400
> To: amkjudaica at hotmail.com
> I will tell you what I think about the patax (Wikipedia says about  
> the qamatz
> that it is, or used to be, a
> תנועה אחורית חצי-פתוחה מעוגלת
> but this we can safely ignore as a mere finger-sucked fable), and  
> this is, as
> far as I can go.
> 1. The יסוד מוסד of the Hebrew niyqud is that the dagesh was  
> there first as
> the sole reading cue for a patax, a xiriq, or a qubuc,  
> (זַנְבוֹת is an override)
> and that the NAQDANIYM based their punctuation on this dagesh. The  
> dagesh
> has nothing to do, in my opinion, not with "gemination" and not  
> with the "opening"
> and "closing" of syllables. Even the hardening of BGDKPT with a  
> dagesh, is,
> in my opinion, merely incidental.
> 2. Upon seeing the dot in the word שבּת in Num. 28:10, the  
> a patax under the letter ש $in. Then they saw the next word  
> בּשבּתּו
> with two interior dgeshim (the initial dagesh is, methinks, but a  
> vestige of a
> dot marking the beginning of the word), which prompted them to  
> place two
> patax marks, one under the letter ש $in, and one under the letter  
> ב bet,
> to read olAt $AbAt b$AbAto.
> 3. In Is. 66:23 the NAQDANIYM saw the dagesh in the letter ת of  
> להשתּחות
> and this directed them to place a xiriq under the letter ה he.
> 4. A patax/qamatc interchange may change the meaning, for instance,
> דַּג זהב DAG ZAHAB, 'gold fish', versus  דָּג זהב 'he  
> fished gold'. But דַּגְתִּי 'I fished',
> with a patax under the letter ד dalet due to a dagesh in the  
> letter ת tav.
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
> On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:37 AM, AMK Judaica wrote:
> The following examples of שבת have a patah under the bet rather  
> than the expected kamatz:
> 2. Numbers: 28:10
> עֹלַ֥ת שַׁבַּ֖ת בְּשַׁבַּתּ֑וֹ עַל- 
> עֹלַ֥ת הַתָּמִ֖יד וְנִסְכָּֽהּ׃ פ
> 4. Chronicles I: 9:32
> וּמִן-בְּנֵ֧י הַקֳּהָתִ֛י מִן- 
> אֲחֵיהֶ֖ם עַל-לֶ֣חֶם  
> הַֽמַּעֲרָ֑כֶת לְהָכִ֖ין שַׁבַּ֥ת  
> שַׁבָּֽת׃
> Some references list these occurrences under a construct rubric,  
> which explains the patah. But why is there a construct state here?  
> And regarding the first example, why does the identical phrase
> 2. Isaiah: 66:23
> וְהָיָ֗ה מִֽדֵּי-חֹ֙דֶשׁ֙  
> בְּחָדְשׁ֔וֹ וּמִדֵּ֥י שַׁבָּ֖ת  
> בְּשַׁבַּתּ֑וֹ יָב֧וֹא כָל-בָּשָׂ֛ר  
> לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹ֥ת לְפָנַ֖י אָמַ֥ר ה'׃
> have a kamatz?
> Thank you,
> Ari
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20130808/356f2d38/attachment.html 

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list