Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

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