Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Vadim Cherny <him AT vadimcherny.org>]

Sure, dagesh is not for secular writing, because it is not for speech at 
all.

My presumption is that the Masoretes won't have used one mark for two 
different phonological events. So there should be no difference between 
dagesh kal and hazak. So I conjecture that dagesh is a stop.

Note that Hebrew is a lossless language or, in other words, has zero 
redundancy. Cantors, therefore, have to pronounce every letter very 
clearly - which is highly unusual in singing.

Dagesh hazak generally serves to prevent post-tonic vowel reduction. 
Post-tonic gemination exists in many languages.

mitlAvesh - mitlAv'sh , especially in singing
but mitlA.vvesh
Eventually, aspiration was lost in begedkefet pairs, and mitlAbesh
.vv -->  b
Non-aspirated begedkefet sounds appeared due to erroneous use of dagesh 
in speech.

Also, post-tonic gemination appears after secondary stress:

hA-vakAr - hAv'kAr
but hA.vvakAr and eventually hAbakAr

Word-initial dagesh kal serves to prevent concatenation:

natan vakar - nata-nvakar - nata-'vakar
but natan .vakar and eventually natan bakar

Concatenation doesn't threaten after open syllables, thus no 
word-initial dagesh.

There is an interesting case of gemination in piel. That flexion relates 
command, intense action, and can be compared to milspeak pronunciation. 
Piel appeared from paal:

davAr - d'vvAar! - d'vvEr! - di.vvEr - diber

Dagesh kal prevents jamming of consonantal clusters. Try chanting:

catAvti - catA-vti - cata'ti
but catAv.ti

nichtAv - ni-chtAv - ni'tAv
but nich.tAv

And mappiq: only by introducing a stop before final hey can we chant it 
clearly:

dvarEh - dvarE'
but dvarE.h

Vadim Cherny



Isaac Fried wrote:
> Vadim,
>
>
>
>  1.. Your theory that the dagesh is a cantillation mark is 
> interesting, but even if so it has no place in Hebrew secular writing, 
> which is my point.
>  2.. Could you give us some examples to a stop by dagesh to avoid 
> jamming?
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vadim Cherny" <him AT vadimcherny.org>
> To: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
> Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 11:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: [b-hebrew] About Dagesh's
>
>
> > Dagesh is not really redundant. Do you think that dagesh worked just 
> > fine for two thousand years so that the Masoretes heard it, and 
> > suddenly became redundant in 60 years of the Modern Hebrew?
> > Dagesh was just never meant for speech, it is a very proper 
> > cantillation device, as indeed the entire Masoretic marking system is 
> > a cantillation guide.
> > In singing, dagesh is very necessary to avoid jamming by forcing 
> > syllabification.
> >
> > Vadim Cherny
> >
> > Isaac Fried wrote:
> > > <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">1. Well 
> > > known biblical exceptions for words starting with BB, BP and KK are 
> > > worth calling attention to:
> > >
> > > עַל-לִבּוֹ בְּבֹאוֹ אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ Exodus 28: 29.
> > >
> > > וַיְהִי בְּבוֹאוֹ וַיִּתְקַע בַּשּׁוֹפָר Judges 3:27
> > >
> > > וְאִכָּבְדָה בְּפַרְעֹה וּבְכָל חֵילוֹ Exodus 14:4
> > >
> > > הֲלֹא כְּכַרְכְּמִישׁ כַּלְנוֹ Isaiah 10:9
> > >
> > > 2. Indeed, few vestiges to soft initial B, K, P are left us now in: 
> > > )AXAREY-KEN, LIPNEY-KEN, )AP-AL-PI-KEN, LO)-KEN? And LO)-KLUM. On 
> > > the other hand B, K, P are hard now [by sanction of the Hebrew 
> > > Academy] even following the close )IY-, ‘no-, un- dis-’, LO)-, ‘no, 
> > > not’, and DU-, ‘double’, as in )IY-B.HIR-UT , ‘lack of clarity’, 
> > > LO)-K.A$IR, ‘unfit’, DU-K.IWUNI, ‘bidirectional’.
> > >
> > > 3. Abolishing the dagesh altogether from Hebrew script would clear 
> > > the orthography of a redundant mark and simplify the grammar.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yaakov Stein" <yaakov_s AT rad.com>
> > > To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 7:05 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] About Dagesh's
> > >
> > >
> > > > > ' Ve'avarti VE'eretz mitzrayim ba'lailah hazeh, ve-hikeiti
> > > > CHOL-bechor....'
> > > >
> > > > > I was wondering if anybody could explain why the usual dagesh-ed form
> > > > is not used!
> > > >
> > > > The rule is very simple actually. The dagesh is dropped after an open
> > > > syllable.
> > > >
> > > > This is always the case after an open syllable in the middle of a 
> > > > word,
> > > > and is also the case after open syllables at the end of the previous
> > > > word
> > > > when the two words are "connected" (i.e. the previous word has a
> > > > connecting cantillation mark).
> > > >
> > > > Yaakov (J) Stein
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > >
> > >
> > > </div>