Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Jason,

True, the entire MI$KAL of PU(LAH behaves regularly and in unison in  
the sense that every word of this class of some 74 Hebrew nouns is  
written without a dagesh after the qubuc (which is not a "short  
vowel" but a KTIB XASER). This MI$QAL is unusual relative to the  
other 26 MI$QALIM that I brought before, and which are also written  
XASER, but now contain all a dagesh. Here they are again:

דִּבָּה
חֻפָּה
אִכָּר
גֻּמָּץ
טַבָּח
חַוָּה
כֻּסֶּמֶת
אַיָּלָה
דַּבֶּשֶת
אַבִּיר
צִפִּיָּה
פִּסָּה
בִּכּוּר
טַבּוּר
חַבּוּרָה
בִּכּוּרָה
כַּמּוֹן
גִּבּוֹר
כִּנּוֹר
כַּפֹּרֶת
תִּמּוֹרָה
שִבֹּלֶת
כֻּתֹּנֶת
גִּבֵּן
אִגֶּרֶת

On the other hand, the dagesh is absent (discounting the dot of the  
$URUK) in the MI$QALIM written in KTIB MALE), to wit:

גִּילָה
בּוּשָה
כּוּמָז
גּישָה
קִיטוֹר

Your statement to the effect that "The dagesh represents the doubling  
of the consonant" has in my opinion no foundation in reality, except  
the "reality" of the Hebrew grammar textbooks. I will repeat my  
opinion that the dagesh has also nothing to do with the BINYAN only  
with the NIKUD, but I know that what I am saying is just QOL QORE) BA- 
MIDBAR since it is in opposition to what is said (among other  
nonsense) in the Hebrew grammar books.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:16 AM, Jason Hare wrote:

> 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