Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Why dagesh in nun of this form

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
  • To: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Why dagesh in nun of this form
  • Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:06:08 +0300

vattosef Karyn lixtov
ותוסף קרין לכתוב
> Yes, but can we say how they developed? We see the A and B entries (in
BDB) for n.w.H. but we want to know why one has the different
pointing. Does this point (no pun intended) to a divergence from a
single root or is it possibly a merger of two roots that did not
extend to the hiphil? Or is the dagesh simply to distinguish between
the two meanings of the root. If so, do we have another example?
>
>In other words, how do we account for the short vowel and dagesh? All
other similar verbs (hiphil, imperative, mp of middle weak verbs) have
the long vowel and no dagesh.
>
>Karyn

Why and how is always more difficult than 'what'. Basically, generating
a nun/dagesh is an ancient process that goes back to such phenomena
as the dagesh in the "vav ha-hippux" structure. Many call this hinniaH an
Aramaization because of the notable cases of Aramaic dialects to
develop and add 'nun' like "manda`" knowledge from a root without
nun. But it is older and wider than SecondTemple Aramaic.
The weak verbs bled into each other, like lamed-yud and lamed-alef,
or the `ayin-vav and `ayin-`ayin (kfulim). These latter produced many
dagesh irregularities like yassov versus yasov. Most notorious of all
are the pe-yud verbs with tsade that develop dagesh when everyone
knows that a pe-yud verb just lengthens the previous vowels. So
we have etstsor 'I will form/segol' instead of etsar/etsar(tsere).
And on the other side with a root n.ts.r,
we have both yintsor and yitstsor. Undoubtedly we
have various types of supplementation taking place that may have
been rooted in different dialects.
And it is good to try to understand Tiberian Hebrew, since it is a
very conservative tradition, often preserving things that they didn't
understand, but they would preserve them, because that's the way
it was. [Karl responded and doesn't want to engage Tiverian Hebrew.
His second point about binyanim may mean that he has not
internalized a Semitic language fully enough to get beyond his
grammar-translation training. Let him become fluent in Arabic or Hebrew
and then we can talk more to the point. His point 3 apparently leaves
the Second Temple prophets 'blowing smoke' if he doesn't think that
they spoke Hebrew. It helps to see how truly multilingual cultures
function. And let him explain the actual data in the development
of mishnaic Hebrew in linguistically appropriate ways. ]

blessings
Randall

--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page