Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

1. In 1Ch 22:10 the B of L-BEN comes after a schwa, and is not dagush.
2. The B of LA-BEN comes after a PATAX, and is dagush.
3. The B of LABAN in Gn 30:35 is after a QAMAC, and is not dagush.
4. LEBEN, 'yogurt', is the Arabic LABANEH.
5. The B of LIB-AM, LIB-AN 'their heart' comes after a XIRIQ, and is  
dagush.
For some reason this dagesh is absent in quadrilitterals, say, GIB 
(OL, 'stem'.
Also, XUMCAH, 'acid', is sans dagesh, possibly to avoid confusion  
with the verbal form.
Notice that KI$OR, written in full, is sans dagesh, but KINOR written  
XASER is with a dagesh.
In colloquial Hebrew HIT-XABAR-TI, 'I became friendly' is with a soft  
B, but HIT-XABAR-TI, 'I joined', is with a hard B.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 23, 2009, at 8:29 PM, <pporta AT oham.net> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> because this is an issue on debate since many days now, I felt  
> allowed to clear away all the preceding messages of yours. Of  
> course, not as a sign of contempt but for the sake or clarity.
>
> I think I understand what our friend John Steven is asking for.
> 1. Let us take the word L:B"N we find in 1Ch 22:10. It means 'to son'
> 2. Now, suppose the word LAB."N, which does not appear in the  
> Bible. It means 'to THE son'.
> 3. Let us now take LFBFN, (male) white (Gn 30:35)
> 4. And now we take LEB.EN, a modern noun meaning 'yogurt'
> 5. Finally, let us consider LIB.FN, which does not appear in the  
> bible. It means 'their heart' (of females) [compare with the  
> analogous word for males in Hos 10:2]
>
> In the five cases the consonants are the same. The vowels and the  
> DAGESH are not the same.
> If we write in the hasar haniqud we could, for the sake of clarity,  
> put a dagesh into the consonant B of the words 2, 4 and 5. But not  
> into the B of words 1 and 3. (In 2 we could otherwise add a patah  
> under the lamed).
> So, the plain sense of all this is: yes, the dagesh is meaningful  
> because through writing it down we define the real meaning of a  
> given word so that it not to be mistaken for another; it isn't a  
> mere device to help or improve the pronunciation.
> Now... the dagesh is meaningful not always but only in some cases.
>
> John, maybe this is what you're asking for?
>
> Pere Porta
> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)