Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi John,

Sorry, by questioning "base morpheme", I was simply wondering what
meaning you were giving this term as it seems to be a term coined by
yourself, that's all.

To assert that "the dagesh has no effect on the meaning of the base" is
a rather confusing way to put things.

a) While the prefix does not alter the semantics of the following
participle, the dagesh does in fact alter the semantics of the morpheme
of which it forms an essential part -- /haC-/ is the morpheme in
question, and to remove this alters the morpheme and consequently the
semantics. Hence your claim that removing the dagesh involves no meaning 
loss is not true.

b) While the prefix does not alter the semantics of the following
participle, it does have scope over the following particle. If the
morpheme is /haC-/ or /ha-/ alters the illocution considerably. Hence
again your claim that removing the dagesh involves no meaning loss is 
not true.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> David Kummerow wrote:
>  > Hi John,
>  >
>  > Not sure what you mean by "base morpheme".
>  >
> By "base morpheme" I mean the main part of the word - not the prefix(es)
> or suffix(es).
> This should have been clear by my use of the example  below of:
>
> <H:A/$OM"R> vs <HA/$.OM"R>:
> <$OM"R> = Qal Participle Masculine Singular
> <$.OM"R> = Qal Participle Masculine Singular
>
> So lets just focus on the dagesh on the base.
> So in the above example the dagesh has no effect on the meaning of the 
> base.
> Its Qal Participle Masculine Singular with or without the dagesh.
>
> Are there any examples where the dagesh (and it alone) will change the
> meaning?
>
>
>
> B"H
> John Steven