Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Jason,

As I recall, the standard explanation given in the Hebrew grammar  
books for the dagesh after HA- is that it is put there to mark a lost  
consonant, possibly the L of Arabic HAL. They raise a similar  
argument about the dagesh after MI- which they claim is to indicate  
the lost N of MIN. Thus, they admit that this dagesh is a mere  
diacritical marking that can be safely dropped with no loss of meaning.
The distinction between the various HA- is contextual and is  
independent of the dagesh.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 24, 2009, at 6:37 AM, Jason Hare wrote:

> Meaning that if it is impossible for the dagesh to be inserted into
> the consonant, then the vowel itself is lengthened to compensate for
> the difference.
>
> הַיֶּלֶד HAY.ELED /ha-yeled/
> הָאָרֶץ HF)FREC /ha-arets/
> הֶעָנָן HE(FNFN /he-anan/
>
> Gutturals do not accept doubling. The vowel is lengthened under the
> article ("compensatory lengthening"), normally to kamats [F] from
> patach [A]. Before heh [H], chet [X], and ayin [(] with kamats in an
> unaccented syllable, it is lengthened to segol [E].
>
> Additionally, there are a set of consonants {S $ & Q N M L W Y} which,
> when they carry a sheva [:] after the article, lose their dagesh. This
> also applies to the vav-consecutive/conversive.
>
> None of this alters the fact that the dagesh is an essential part of
> the Hebrew article, as David and George have adequately put forth.
> Just as الـ /al/ (the article in Arabic) doubles sun letters when  
> it
> precedes them, so the article in Hebrew naturally doubles the first
> consonant of the word.
>
> Arabic example: شمس shams (sun) > *الشمس *al-shams >  
> الشّمس ash-shams
> (the sun). This is represented by the doubling of the shiin with
> shadda. The laam remains, but it is NEVER pronounced before a sun
> letter.
>
> The only difference is that in Hebrew the theoretical nun or lamed is
> assimilated at is never seen. Arabic could have just dropped the laam
> in these forms and left it as a basic assimilation, but they left it
> there unpronounced.
>
> I definitely agree with both David and George in their position. It's
> the correct way to look at it.
>
> Jason Hare
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, David Kummerow
> <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear John,
> >
> > You can't go putting forth examples such as the ones below as  
> > disproving
> > the fact that the definite article in BH is /haC-/ before firstly
> > understanding the phonetic conditioning surrounding the  
> > realisation of
> > the /haC-/ morpheme. Please either accept that the morpheme /haC-/  
> > has
> > several phonologically conditioned allomorphs [haC-], [ha-], and  
> > [he-]
> > or set forth a more convincing arguement as to why you assert that  
> > the
> > definite article in BH is not /haC-/ but rather /ha-/.
> >
> > Regards,
> > David Kummerow
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew