Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> > But I can clearly see, from the examples that you and David Hamuel have
> > given, that the graphic presence/absence of the dagesh alone can
> > indicate words of different meaning.
> >
> >     
>
> Which is another way of saying that dagesh forte is phonemic, a fact 
> which we have been trying to tell you the whole time. And which is why 
> we have kept repeating to you that statements you kept making about the 
> definite article such as
>
> "if you remove the dagesh mark from the word in the <H:A/$OM"R> vs 
> <HA/$.OM"R> no translational data would be lost."
>
> are in error because dagesh forte is phonemic. Hence the phoneme /haC/ 
> differs to /ha/.
>   
You still don't get it - as I am talking about just the "Base morpheme" 
of the word.
But don't worry about it - my question has been answered already.