Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

John,

 I am not sure if this is what you are looking for, but consider  
XUMCAH, (חֻמְצָה), 'acid', punctuated qubuc, schwa, qamac, but  
with no dagesh in the M, in spite of the KTIB XASER. Yet the pual  
form XUMCAH, (חֻמְּצָה), 'she was made sour' is also  
punctuated qubuc, schwa, qamac, but now with a dagesh in the M as per  
the rule.
In any event, these are only formal games.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 25, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Brak wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew