Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

Hello, all.
I'm wondering why noun 'bayit', house, takes a dagesh within the tav in its
plural form (in both absolute and construct.)

Look at Am 3:15, where both plural kinds appear.

Is there a good reason for this dagesh?

Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)




2010/10/27 Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>

> >> Since you proposed this to Pere
> >> it would only be curtious to provide him with your proposed form.
> >
> [KR]
> > The “proposed form” is the word as written. Without the Masoretic points.
> >
> >>
> [RB]
> >> So without a proposed and supported form
> >> there is nothing to discuss. Just how do you propose to take a
> >> root alef.yod.dalet and produce a pi``el participle spelled
> >> mem.alef.dalet?
> >
> > Was that a tri-literal or a bi-literal root? The concept that all
> Biblical
> > Hebrew verbs have tri-literal roots is “first year Hebrew” which I
> question,
> > and for good reason. If bi-literal root, just as written.
>
> First, you referred to a noun with alef.yod.dalet., a tri-litteral root.
>
> Secondly, a 'bi-litteral pi``el' is non-communicative as it stands.
>
> What in the world is it supposed to sound like and why would it
> be called a pi``el?
> A pi``el? what kind of morphology is a pi``el?
> You don't have a structural length phoneme
> in the middle in your system, so what is it?
>
> We do have 'two-letter' "pi``el-types"s, but they get their
> middle length through reduplication:
> kilkel, siksek, tsiftsef, kirker, ti`ta`, etc.
> None of which supports m.alef.dalet as a "pi``el".
>
> This raises a question,
> why do you have a category "pi``el"?
> It's from the Masoretes !
> You are free to invent your own language without a pi``el
> category.
> You don't have any phonemic consonantal length to deal with.
> You can attribute verbs with 'm' prefixes to hif`il, and those without 'm',
> to either Qal QATAL or Hif`il YIQTOL.
> And you aren't constrained with having to explain
> correspondences within and with Arabic, Syriac, Mishnaic Hebrew,
> and Masoretic Hebrew, and Akkadian and Ugaritic. (They do all
> have lengthened middle-letter binyanim. And none of them would
> support m.'.d. as a "pi``el". But since none of these are consonantal
> BH, you could ignor them and declare them irrelevant. [this doesn't
> make it true, but you could do it.])
>
> Or, otherwise, you will need to explain how a two-consonant root can be
> a pi``el, whatever that ends up being in your system.
> Without an explanation and definition of the pi``el morphology, the
> proposal
> of an 'undefined pi``el' becomes gibberish//charabiya.
>
> So please be a little clearer with your definitions of pi``el.
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>  _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>



-- 
Pere Porta
"Ei nekrói ouk eguéirontai, fágomen kai píomen áurion gar apothnéskomen"
(1Cor 15:32)