Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> >What I say, basically, is that the Masoretes recorded some instances of
> >begedkefet (with dagesh kal) more plosified than others (without dagesh).
...
>
> OK  if you replace "more plosified" by "not fricativised".

That I cannot do. The Masoretes introduced dagesh kal--a stop, in my
opinion--for distinct singing in positions where there is no stop in speech,
as we can see from Arabic. That stop necessarily reduced aspiration of
subsequent consonant (the one with dagesh kal). Therefore, the Masoretes
made some instances of begedkefet "less aspirated" than other instances.
This led to "begedkefet spread," non-dageshed begedkefet's fricativised to
clearly distinguish them from the dageshed counterparts.
I can summarize as follows: introduction of the dagesh kal reduced
aspiration in some instances (made the relevant sounds "more plosified"),
and in response to this process, the other instances became fricativised.

> In fact the raw data says nothing about the direction of change.
>

There are some indications.
We know that the Greeks didn't generally use tau for tav, so presumably tav
was aspirated, with strictly plosive variety appearing in response to dagesh
kal.
Phei appears in Vulgate as ph, so it also was aspirated, and pei appeared
because of dagesh kal. Similarly with chaf.
Bet, however, often appears in Vulgate as "b." Synodal Bible, however,
universally employs "v," with major exceptions of Abram and Helbon.
Therefore, bet was originally a strong plosive, fricativised by the 11th
century.

> >Right. And if dagesh is a stop, intermission, then it "causes" gemination
or
> >stronger plosification.
> >
> I will accept that in principle a "stop" might "cause" gemination or
> inhibit fricativisation. But I don't think that is what is happening
> here. In my opinion and that of most scholars, a dagesh is simply an
> indication of lack of fricativisation, or of gemination, two features
> which occur together with intervocalic begadkepat letters.

The Masoretes had little idea of what is "lack of fricativisation." They
employed a device known to every opera singer - a stop.
Nowhere in the tradition there is any indication that at any time dagesh kal
was understood as gemination.
Another evidence against dagesh as gemination is mappiq, which is evidently
the same sign as dagesh.  We know that hey do not geminate.
Mappiq--dagesh--in hey could only mean stop. Similarly with dagesh in waw.
But the main argument against dagesh as gemination, in my opinion, is
metaphysical. The Masoretes were painfully honest. They marked many words
which they did not understand, but didn't attempt to change these words.
They were likely versed in gematry. They would not dream of changing the
sacred letters, like doubling them--affecting the roots, the meaning
(gemination in two-letter roots), and possibly the gematrical values.

As for your repeated insistence on the significance of intervocalic
position, I demonstrated that no such correlation exists: second radicals in
hitpael and piel are geminated (or reduced in aspiration), though
intervocalic, and the third radical in constructus plural is not dageshed.

> I understood that the Slavonic Bible was based entirely on the Greek with
no direct Hebrew or Aramaic
> influence. Can you give me any examples of names in the Slavonic
> or  Russian Bible which are based directly on Hebrew not via LXX? (Yes,
> they may have knocked off -os  and -as endings according to standard
> Russian practice with Greek names as well as Hebrew ones: IOUDAS -> Iuda
> is parallel  to SILAS -> Sila.)
>
This is, indeed, a major difference. Using "v" where the LXX has beta is
another instance. I recall reading several examples in Steinberg, but just
don't remember them off-hand.

Vadim Cherny