Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Jason,

XUCPAH and XUMCAH are of the same MI$QAL as are TUM)AH, GUZMAH,  
QUPSAH, QU$YAH, and so on. This entire MI$QAL is sans dagesh, to  
avoid collision, methinks, with the pual structure. The same is true  
of the MI$QAL of ZIMRAH, singing', which is sans dagesh in the M, as  
opposed to the piel form ZIMRAH, 'she sang', which is with a dagesh  
in the M as per the rule.
All this has nothing to do with the BINYAN, nor with the purported  
'gemination'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University


On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:30 PM, Jason Hare wrote:

> Isaac,
>
> What about חֻצְפָּה XUCPFH (no dagesh in the tsadi) and  
> קֻשְׁיָה
> QU$YFH (no dagesh in the shin)? The mishkal may be uncommon, but it is
> not at all unusual, and the pointing is completely understandable. I
> cannot imagine that anyone who has invested much time in the study of
> the grammar and specifics of the Biblical language would at all
> consider these things odd.
>
> Jason Hare
>
> 2009/2/26 Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>:
> > Jason,
> >
> > I am afraid you are wrong. The MI$KAL of XUMCAH is unusual. Consider:
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew