Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jason Hare <jaihare AT gmail.com>]

What did you mean by this comment, then?

"I am afraid you are wrong. The MI$KAL of XUMCAH is unusual."

What is "unusual"? If it is completely regular, and the entire mishkal
follows the pattern, why do you say it is unusual? Kubuts is a short
vowel, so it *only* makes sense that it sit in a closed syllable.

chuf-shah (closed first syllable receives a short vowel, kubuts)
tum-'ah (closed first syllable receives a short vowel, kubuts)

פִּטְּרָה pit-trah (closed first syllable receives a short vowel,
hirik, according to the binyan)
פֻּטְּרָה put-trah (closed first syllable receives a short vowel,
kubuts, according to the binyan)

The dagesh represents the doubling of the consonant, which causes it
both to close one syllable and to open another. These things are
COMPLETELY USUAL (nothing "unusual" about them) according to standard
vocalization rules. I'm just trying to understand why you think
there's something "unusual" in the mishkal in question.

Regards,
Jason Hare

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> 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