Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com>]

I have said many time that I am not concerned with how it is pronounced. 
I am only concerned with the graphic representation and meaning. I'm not 
concerned that the adding of the dagesh is causing the vowel change - 
the fact is that there is a vowel change. So when you say the only 
difference is the dagesh you are wrong - as you have different vowels.

Again, I am asking if there is any place where you have two words (two 
word-parts even) which are identical in EVERY way except in regards to 
the presence/absence of one or more dagesh AND has a different meaning.

So your example with <H:A/$OM"R>/<HA/$.OM"R> fails in both ways.


B"H
John Steven.

"He who makes a mistake is still our friend; he who adds to or shortens 
a melody is still our friend; but he who violates a rhythm unawares can 
no longer be our friend."
-Ishaq Ibn Ibrahim 767-850 CE.

"If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you 
behave."
-Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

"The difference between the intelligent man and the simpleton is not the 
correctness of their decisions, but rather the cunning sinner can more 
skillfully defend and justify his iniquity."
- Rabbi Tovia Singer


Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
> On 2/22/09, Brak wrote:
>
>   
> > The example you gave in Gn4:9 and Ps 146:6 of <H:A/$OM"R@Pg/vqPmsa> and
> > <HA/$.OM"R@Pa/vqPmsa> does not met the criteria of my question for two
> > reasons:
> > 1: There is an additional change to the word beside the dagesh (as you
> > pointed out yourself - the HE has a hataf patah in the first word, and a
> > patah in the second word. This only effects the prefix of the word the first
> > being an interrogative, the second being an article).
> > 2: <$OM"R> and <$.OM"R> both have the same meaning as they are both Qal
> > Participle Masculine Singular Absolute based on the root <$MR>.
> >     
>
> No.  The dagesh is the only difference between the two.  The dagesh
> conveys a difference in pronunciation.  The difference between patah
> and hataf patah is due to the presence of dagesh.  In closed syllables,
> patah is used, whereas in open syllables hataf patah is used.  It is the
> gemination causes the syllable to be closed.  Thus, the two words are
> pronounced:
> ha-sho-mer - interrogative
> hash-sho-mer - definite article
> The only difference in pronunciation is the gemination.  EVERYTHING
> else is pronounced the same way.   In both cases ("ha" vs. "hash")
> the "a" is short.  It just so happens that short a in an open syllable
> is marked by a hataf patah and in a closed syllable by a regular
> patah (at least in standardized manuscripts).  Just because they are
> marked differently, does not mean they are pronounced differently.
> What therefore marks the first as an interrogative vs definite article
> is the use of gemination.
>
> Please note: the two also have different cantillation marks - but you seem
> to ignore these.  Why are you willing to overlook differences in cantillation
> marks but not overlook differences in patah/hataf patah?  All these signs
> are meant to convey a system of pronunciation, but instead of looking at
> pronunciation, you seem to want to look at differences in the graphical
> representation of the pronunciation without trying to understand the
> system and rules of the graphical representation (such as the difference
> in open vs closed syllables above).  In this case, I happened to find an
> example where $omer was spelled defectively, without a waw.  But if it
> had been spelled with a waw, does that mean you would not accept the
> example?  Why?  The waw is ignored in the vocalization, and it is only
> the holam that matters.
>
> So the answer to your question is yes.  Perhaps instead of me citing more
> examples, you should explain what this is all about.  What is the "ultimate"
> purpose of your inquiry?
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>