Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jason Hare <jaihare AT gmail.com>]

Isaac,

The dagesh must be there because it is a short vowel (kubuts is ALWAYS
short) found in an unaccented syllable. A short vowel in an unaccented
syllable must always be in a CLOSED syllable. The dagesh closes the
syllable. It is necessary with the pointing. You will not find an
unaccented syllable with patach, segol, kubuts (because they are
short) unless segol or patach precedes a syllable with a half-vowel
(hatef-segol or hatef-patach, respectively). It's a basic part of the
system, Isaac, and your refusal to accept it only highlights more of
the weakness in your theory, which cannot account for the dagesh
except to say that 'the dagesh seems to appear after kubuts and
hirek,' which is just ridiculous and completely unsystematic. It has
absolutely ZERO explanatory power.

Jason Hare
Rehovot, Israel

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> The dagesh in (ARUMIM, 'naked', of Gen 2:25 is possibly to alert the
> public reader not to read the word as (AROMIM or (EROMIM or (EYROMIM
> from the singular (EYROM of Gen 3:10. In Gen 3:7 it back to (EYRUMIM
> ( עֵירֻמִּם ) in QTIB XASER and a proper dagesh in the M.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>