Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com>]

I'm sorry - but I don't know which David you are referencing, or his 
comment you are referring to.
This has become quite a thread! lol

But I will say:
Interesting thought on the methodology of the morpheme breaks in the 
CCAT encoded text.
So you are basically saying that the dagesh found in the second radical 
of the word (first radical of the "base") should actually be in the 
prefixed side of the morpheme break - but according the the encoding 
schema (Letter - Dagesh) had to put the dagesh on the "base" side - even 
though it really doesn't belong there.

Very interesting thought. And I thank you for it!!

B"H
John Steven

Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Brak wrote:
>
>   
> > The base parts are not the same graphically - as one has a dagesh, the
> > other doesn't.
> > My diving the word is not arbitrary! The morpheme breaks I gave are not
> > of my invention!
> > My question is about the "base" - weather you approve of it or not. So
> > please don't tell me what questions to ask.
> >
> > So my question is what it is: Does the addition of a dagesh(es) into the
> > "base" of the word change the meaning the of "base" of the word?
> >     
>
> Since you referred to CCAT, I just thought I'd point out that if you are using
> CCAT as the basis for the division of morphemes, then you are misusing
> their division scheme in placing the dagesh with what you call the "base
> word."  The authors of CCAT are in agreement with David Kummerow here.
> They just can't place the dagesh with the previous morpheme because of
> the way Hebrew is transcribed, even if they would want to do so.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>