Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

If I understand you right, then you are on the right path: there is  
no evidence that the dagesh has any vocal value. The hardening of B K  
P in its presence is possibly only incidental.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 22, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Brak wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew