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 Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Any meaning to the Dagesh?
  • Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:02:10 -0500


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page