Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>]

As the dagesh in Hebrew and Aramaic are explicable without reference to 
Hurrian, why would we bother to take that route?  It is observable in a 
number of languages where lenition occurs that it is often blocked by 
geminate consonants.  Whether that is indicated by doubling the letter, 
placing a dagesh within it, or any other devise one can think of, seems 
incidental.  The same sounds are lenited in Greek, in Irish (which 
traditionally marked the lenited consonant with a dot), and in even more 
obscure languages around the world.  While the change is unique to 
Aramaic and Hebrew (or, at least, the marking of it is) among the 
Semitic languages, it is a process that is familiar to most linguists.  
There is no need for an external influence, especially for one that 
ceased to exist centuries before we have any evidence of lenition 
existing in Hebrew and Aramaic.  By natural, homegrown linguistic 
processes Hebrew and Aramaic came to have lenited and unlenited 
consonants.  Marking the unlenited consonant with the same mark as used 
to indicate doubling is obvious if it is the geminate consonants that 
are not lenited.  To extend that to the comparatively rare cases when a 
single consonant was not lenited is not a big leap, especially if 
gemination has been lost.

Kevin Riley

On 26/10/2010 4:20 PM, Bryant J. Williams III wrote:
> Dear Jim,
>
> This list is about BIBLICAL HEBREW, not HURRIAN. I really do care about 
> knowing
> Biblical Hebrew. Cognate languages may be able to assist in determining the
> meaning of a hapax legomenon or words used less than 10 times, but usually are
> not able to help in determining meaning since it is the context that is the
> determining factor in ALL cases.  Just because something is possible, does not
> mean that it is probable or certain. I remind myself often that ALL we have is
> the text everything else is supposition or even presupposition.
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:<JimStinehart AT aol.com>
> To:<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 7:20 AM
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Dagesh
>
>
> > On another thread, Kenneth Greifer humorously wrote:  “I have been on
> > B-Hebrew for a few years, and I know that you can never fail if you discuss
> > dageshes and schwas. You should see how excited they get if someone asks why a
> > dagesh is someplace….  Be careful about asking too many questions about
> > dageshes because you don't want to overexcite some of the older B-Hebrew
> members.”
> > But all kidding aside, did the Hebrew dagesh concept originate from
> > Hurrian?
> >
> > In Hurrian, Hebrew and Aramaic, and perhaps in no other languages, B and P
> > soften when between vowels, except when doubled.  Did the Hebrew dagesh,
> > which prevents such softening by doubling B or P, come from Hurrian, which has
> > the same written phenomenon as to P?  That is the tentative suggestion at
> > pp. 56-57 of Frederic William Bush, “A Grammar of the Hurrian Language”
> > (1964) [where I will use<<…>>  for the two footnotes, and anything in brackets
> > represents my own comments]:
> >
> >   “Hurrian did not tolerate doubled voiced stops [e.g., B] but only doubled
> > voiceless stops [e.g., P]….  Now, the fact that the three fricatives of
> > Hurrian (the labial [B and P], the dental and the velar) exhibit this exact
> same
> > pattern is suggestive.  …This pattern of non-phonemic, inter-vocalic
> > [between vowels] spirantization [softening, where B is pronounced V in Hebrew,
> and
> > P is pronounced PH in Hurrian and Hebrew] which is lost when the consonants
> > are doubled immediately brings to mind the very similar pattern of the
> > Hebrew stops.<<FN 59  The so-called begadkephat letters.  This is a feature
> of
> > Aramaic as well.  Here [in Hurrian] it occurs in post-vocalic position
> > also.>>   This is a pattern that is unique among the Semitic languages, and
> hence
> > it seems likely that it is due to some exterior influence.  Perhaps this
> > development is due to the influence of Hurrian during the formative period of
> > the Aramaic and Canaanite dialects during the latter half of the second
> > millennium.<<FN 60:  It must be noted that the Hebrews [but Jim says:  No
> way!
> >   The Hebrews’ experience with the Hurrians was in Canaan in the 14th
> > century BCE] and the Arameans originated in just those areas of North Syrian
> and
> > North-west Mesopotamia where Hurrian penetration was particularly strong.
> > Although direct evidence is lacking, the close association of the Hurrians
> > with other Semitic groups as at Nuzi and Alalah renders a similar relationship
> > between the Hurrians and the ancestors of the Arameans and Canaanites
> > entirely within the realm of possibility.>>    …This remains, however, the 
> > most
> > tentative of suggestions.”
> >
> > Is this fundamental Hebrew grammar feature of doubling a P [i.e., using a
> > dagesh] in writing to indicate the rare situation where P, even though
> > surrounded by vowels, does not soften to PH, coming from Hurrian?  Apparently
> > Hebrew and Aramaic are the only Semitic languages that have this Hurrian-type
> > feature.
> >
> > Jim Stinehart
> > Evanston, Illinois
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007 
> 3:19
> PM
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew