Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

Yakov,

I am sorry, but it is NI$EQ not NI$EK. By local convention K = kaph  
and Q = qoph.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:06 PM, Isaac Fried wrote:

> Yakov,
>
> Allow me to write V for a soft bet, and B for a hard. Also, F for a
> soft pe and P for a hard. Recall also that $ is shin.
> So we have in Hebrew DAVAR, 'thing, word', but also DABAR, 'leader,
> speaker'. We have NAFAX, 'blew', but also NAPAX, 'blacksmith'.
> I do not know why there is a dagesh in the middle radical of the piel
> form, but does it practically matter now if we write NI$EK, 'kissed',
> without a dagesh in the $? Those who pretend to read it NI$-$EK
> delude themselves. I think that BK"P became hard thereby only
> incidentally, but now we are stuck with this phenomenon and need to
> say DIBER, not DIVER.
> Look at the word KAF, 'palm of the hand'.  'My hand' is KAPI. Why is
> the pe now dgusha? Because, say the grammar books, the word is from
> the root KPP. So what? Does this have to turn an F into a P?
> Conclusion: The less you explain the better off you are.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On Jun 16, 2008, at 9:43 PM, Yakov Hadash wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 2008, at 8:11 PM, Isaac Fried wrote:
> > > We will need to keep the dot, the "dagesh qal", in the letters
> > > bet, kaf, pe to distinguish between their "hard" and "soft"
> > > manifestation. Otherwise, the dagesh is redundant in plain speech.
> >
> > Yeah but you didn't address my issue.
> >
> > Without the dagesh hazak, there is no way of explaining a lot of
> > confusing issues with vocalizing Hebrew, especially with פיעל
> > and התפעל, which have dagesh hazak as part of the stem.
> >
> > Do you want people to just not be able to know why there's a noun
> > "davar" and a verb "medabber" (and not "davar" and "medaver")?
> >
> > YH.
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew