Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jason Hare <jaihare AT gmail.com>]

Isaac,

I think, in terms of Hebrew study, you really must exist in a
different sphere from the rest of us. I'm just lost as to (1) how you
at all didn't understand what I wrote and (2) responded with what is
below. You're saying, I guess, that the lengthening of patach to
kamats or segol (in some situations) is just purely random and has not
EXPLANATION? Is that what I'm supposed to take from this? You reject
the stand explanation that the dagesh represents consonant
assimilation and that the rejection of the assimilation results in
vocalic lengthening? I really don't know where you're coming from in
terms of your explanations of Hebrew morphology. You're so outside the
box that the box doesn't even make sense to you, and your theories
don't make sense to me.

Jason Hare
Rehovot, Israel

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> 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