Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

You said that the mark indicating the article HE is the dagesh.
This isn't so - as the following examples show (Note that I didn't even 
have to go beyond Genesis to find a bunch of them):

Inter. HE and dagesh in second syllable.
gn17:17,8 <HA/L.:/BEN>
gn18:21,4 <HA/K.:/CA(:AQFT/FH.>
gn37:32,13 < HA/K.:TONET>

Article HE and no dagesh in second syllable.
gn2:12,3 <HA/HIW)>
gn7:4,16 <HA/Y:QW.M>
gn14:10,2 <HA/&ID.IYM>
gn15:10,15 <HA/CIP.OR>
gn30:41,5 <HA/M:QU$.FROWT>


So again, if you remove the dagesh mark from the word in the <H:A/$OM"R> 
vs <HA/$.OM"R> no translational data would be lost.

Are there any examples where it would - especially on the word part that 
the dagesh appears?

B"H
John Steven


David Kummerow wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> You've got it the wrong way around: it is not the presence of a pathah 
> vis-a-vis hatef-pathah which signals interrogative heh vs definite 
> article, but the presence or absence of the dagesh. The definite article 
> is not simply /ha/ but /haC/, ie with gemination. It is the gemination 
> which is determinative, not solely the orthographic vowel realisation as 
> phonetically the vowel sound is exactly the same, as Yitzhak has already 
> told you. It is not that "the dagesh mark isn't providing any additional 
> information". As I've told you, the presence of the dagesh controls the 
> orthographic realisation of the vowel -- so if you're going to remove 
> the dagesh, you logically need to remove the preceding vowel also 
> because they come together in the orthographic representation of the 
> language.
>
> The example I gave was the one already discussed: /hashshomer/.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
>
>
>   
> > The vowel mark under the HE tells you if its interrogative vs definite 
> > article. The hatah patah tells you its interrogative, the patah tells 
> > you its definite article. So in this example the dagesh mark isn't 
> > providing any additional information. Even if the vowel mark is 
> > controlled by the dagesh - the point is that the vowel mark can provide 
> > the data on its own.
> >
> > The example that you gave I wasn't able to find in the text. Could you 
> > provide the book/chap/verse for the two words, or can you spell them 
> > using the CCAT format?
> >
> >
> > B"H
> > John Steven
> >
> >
> >
> > David Kummerow wrote:
> >     
> > > Well, in your example, if you were to remove the dagesh from /ha??omer/, 
> > > then how do you determine interrogative heh vis-a-vis definite article, 
> > > since the definite article vis-a-vis interrogative heh is determined by 
> > > the presence/absence of dagesh? Sure, you can resort to semantic 
> > > grounds, but what is the formal indicator? It is not simply the vowel 
> > > marking, but the presence or absence of the dagesh. If you're going to 
> > > remove the dagesh, then you might as well remove the preceding vowel, 
> > > because it's orthographic realisation is determined by the presence of 
> > > the dagesh, which is in turn realised by the semantics of the phrase. 
> > > Same issue with /wayyiqqtol/ vis-a-vis /weyiqtol/ etc.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > David Kummerow.
> > >
> > >
> > >       
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>