Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Any meaning to the Dagesh?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: Jason Hare <jaihare AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Any meaning to the Dagesh?
  • Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:54:11 -0500

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page