Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

     Apparently you did not check the elementary Arabic grammar as
 I suggested.
     Further, surely BU has an Arab -English dictionary, and possibly
 also an Arab-Hebrew one. Look them up, if you know the script.
 
    Youv'e also stated later: "Notice that no doubling may occur in
 DIBRAH, 'she spoke'."
 
    Since your statement may mislead some, it  needs to be pointed
 out that in neither 'DIBER' nor 'DIBRAH' is  the Bet emphasized or
 doubled in normal speech.


   Uri Hurwitz                                            Great Neck,  NY
 
 
   <The Arabic Shadda is not the Hebrew dagesh XAZAQ.

Isaac Fried>

On Feb 23, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Uri Hurwitz wrote:

>
>
>      Why don't you pick up an elementary Arabic grammar, and
>  check if it has a " dagesh XAZAQ ", and whether or not it is
> changes pronounciation of a letter?
>     Hint: it is called 'shaadah', from 'shadid'.
>
>    Uri Hurwitz                                         Great Neck, NY



>From Brak AT neo.rr.com  Mon Feb 23 23:11:39 2009
Return-Path: <Brak AT neo.rr.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 984334C01D; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:11:39 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled
        version=3.2.3
Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com (cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com
        [75.180.132.121])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21AF64C015
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:11:39 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [192.168.0.101] (really [75.185.151.180])
        by cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com with ESMTP
        id <20090224041138.VFMF8036.cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com@[192.168.0.101]>
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:11:38 +0000
Message-ID: <49A3749A.30700 AT neo.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:16:26 -0500
From: Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
        rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080313 SeaMonkey/1.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <339895.65867.qm AT web110309.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <339895.65867.qm AT web110309.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Any meaning to the Dagesh?
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:11:40 -0000

Yitzhak,
Sorry that I miss understood your post, and assumed you meant something
that you didn't.

Everyone,
For some reason the answers that have been posted are not addressing my
question. So clearly I am not being understood. So I will try to ask my
question again, but in a different way.

Does the absence/presence of the dagesh MARK alone change the
form/aspect/state/meaning/translation/etc of the word?  I am NOT
concerned with the effects it has on the pronunciation of the word!
I repeat  my question has NOTHING to do with pronunciation - but rather
the relationship between the dagesh MARK and its lone effect on the
meaning of a word.

If there are other GRAPHIC changes to the word along with the dagesh
MARK change (such as a vowel MARK change) - then it does NOT apply to my
question - as this is an additional graphic change to the word.

For example:

<H:A/$OM"R> - Interrogative / Qal Participle Masculine Singular
<HA/$.OM"R> - Article / Qal Participle Masculine Singular

In this example the GRAPHIC presence/absence of the dagesh has no effect at 
all on the meaning of the word - as both words are Qal Participle Masculine 
Singular.


Are there any instances in the Biblical text where the addition/subtraction 
of the  dagesh MARK change the meaning of the word.

Another way to ask it:
If I were to remove all the dagesh MARKS from the Biblical text, will
their absence in anyway hinder/reduce my ability to translate the text?
Or does the dagesh MARKS contain data vital to the translation of a word?

Thanks in advance.

B"H
John Steven