Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Vadim Cherny <vadimcherny AT gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Vadim Cherny wrote:
> Though not attested, there's no doubt about the absence of dagesh kal
> in bitechem.
> Binchem has no gemination; what except intonational difference in
> chanting can explain its difference from michtav?
> Speaking of gemination, no nun in gav, yet gabcha. What we see here is
> kal rather than hazak. The Masoretes used kal to forcibly syllabify:
> bi-.nchem, ga-.bcha.

"Binchem" is not attested at all.  Vadim, you are inventing words to  
justify
your theories, which have no basis at all, and which directly  
contradict things
that the Masoretes themselves wrote.  I am therefore asking you to  
please
quote a verse for every word you use.  In any case, the word "$imkhem"  
is
attested and has the exact same syllabification as mikht@v.  I have no  
idea
what word you mean by gabcha so again, please quote a verse for the
examples you bring up.

Yitzhak Sapir


---

The Masoretes, sorry, did not write anything on grammar. Saaida wrote  
centuries after them.
Michtav has dagesh while $imchem doesn't - would you suggest any  
conceivable difference between them which have led to different use of  
dagesh kal?

Vadim Cherny