Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jason Hare <jaihare AT gmail.com>]

How do you see XUMCFH as different from these several words, which are
shaped exactly the same, and none of which have a dagesh in the second
radical?

Jason

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> 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