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 20:31:22 -0500

Jason

As I said, the entire (entire!) MI$KAL of PU(LAH is without a dagesh, in other words, every Hebrew noun of the structure of XUMCAH is sans dagesh, for instance, XUP$AH, 'freedom', which is with a soft P due to the lack of dagesh. Here are more examples (not all biblical) written in Hebrew:
טֻמְאָה
בֻּכְנָה
דֻּגְמָה
חֻלְשָה
כֻּמְסָה
סֻגְיָה
חֻלְצָה

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 25, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Jason Hare wrote:

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
_______________________________________________
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