Biblical Hebrew Forum

["VC" <vadim_lv AT center-tv.net>]

Dear Ken,

No, I don't recall those texts. Thank you, I will read them.

In my study, as expected, I came to conclusion that the base is similar for
sing and pl forms. Just want to verify whether anyone investigated this path
before.


Sincerely,

Vadim Cherny


Have you read W. R. Garr, "The Seghol and Segholation in Hebrew," Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 48 (1989) 109-116?

On the history of Hebrew stress, see J. Blau, _In Memoriam P. Kahle_, 1968,
33-34 or _A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew_, 30-34.

Segolate nouns form their plural from a different base, with a long A
between the second and third radicals. Because the third radical of plural
segolates was originally preceded by a vowel, it has no dagesh.

I hope I have understood your question correctly.

Ken Penner
McMaster/Hebrew

> Does anybody know of decent theoretical study on shva
> merahephet, whether a book, Internet publication, or perhaps
> a synopsis?
> I mean, lexicological explanation beyond the mere fact that
> the concept of shva merahephet explains known anomaly?
>
> Perhaps you would also know when the use of dagesh in
> segollate (is this the correct word in English?) was first
> documented? That is, do we have extra-Masoretic spelling with
> dagesh in lamed?
>
> By the way, speaking on the earliest documented usage, do you
> happen to know when suffix hem (haf-mem) first became stressed?