Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jason Hare" <jason AT hareplay.com>]

Peter,

There does not have to be a dagesh in the first lamed because of the VOCAL
SH'VA underneath it. Remember that the letters $&CSQNMLWY do not /have/ to
carry a dagesh when they have a vocal sh'va under them (reference page 107
of Weingreen's grammar, note N.B. (1) at the top of the page: "The Dagesh
Forte which is characteristic in the 2nd root-letter is sometimes absent in
certain forms. The second example B.iQ."$ happens to be one of these verbs,
when the medial root-letter Q is vowelless, i.e. when it has a shewa: the
3rd pl. Perf. B.iQ.:$W. is found as B.iQ:$W. [with a rafe above the Q], the
doubling of the medial root-letter having been ommitted for euphony...."

My point is that, when I was in first-year Hebrew we had a term for it:
skinemleviy. That was to help us remember which letters they were. In Seow's
grammar (ref. below), it is section VI.7 "Loss of the Strong Dagesh." It
reads thus:

"The consonants W, Y, L, M, N, and Q, and the sibilants (S, C, &, and $)
frequently lose the strong /dagesh/ when they are followed by a /shewa/. The
precise rules for retaining or omitting the /dagesh/ need not concern us
now; at this stage one needs only to know that the /dagesh/ may disappear."

Thus, I still think that HLLWYH is a piel with the loss of the dagesh forte
in the second radical. And I see no reason for a belief that this has a
k'tiv/q'rei. I have never read that anywhere, so I think this was an indeed
unfounded... IMO.

Shalom,
Jason Hare

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
To: "Jason Hare" <jason AT hareplay.com>
Cc: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew transliteration


> On 19/01/2004 10:54, Jason Hare wrote:
>
> >>And so for the Masoretic
> >>pronunciation
> >>perhaps we have some kind of perpetual Qere, with the
> >>pronunciation as
> >>if there is one lengthened lamed; so we would have unchanged
> >>Ketiv HLLW
> >>YH but Qere HAL.W. YAH.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I thought that HLL was a piel form, so both lameds were to be pronounced.
Am
> >I just off? Thus, the dagesh in the first lamed represents the dagesh of
the
> >piel binyan, ...
> >
> Yes - except that there isn't a dagesh in the first lamed. If there was,
> there would be no problem, except that Trevor would have to
> transliterate with three l's, hallluw yah. But a lot of people seem to
> read the word as if there was a dagesh there.
>
> >... and the second lamed is the third radical. Have I ever seen
> >HLWYH instead of HLLWYH? I don't think so. I don't recall seeing it in
any
> >of the Massoretic notations, and I never had read about it being a
perpetual
> >q'rei until this message. Can I get a reference?
> >
> >
> >
> No, the idea of it being a qere was my own speculation, probably
unfounded.
>
>
> -- 
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
>