Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] hiriq, tzereh, dagesh

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] hiriq, tzereh, dagesh
  • Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:24:26 -0200

in deciding whether the dagesh is essential to hebrew or not,
the first question is if it is older than the early 7th century
AD where the arabic dagesh was introduced. but even if it is
older, it would reflect first millenium AD and not first millenium
BC hebrew. so, isaac, if your question is about BH then your
conjecture has nothing to rely on and is as good as the exact
opposite.

also, the linguistic elements do not serve only the context. often
they grow in contrast to a neighboring dialect. according to a well
known joke, you may change in modern english all d to t, all sh to
sch, all c to k, all u to au etc causing little damage. but at the
end you will get german instead of english.

nir



>>> Para: Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
Data: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:11:51 -0400
Assunto: Re: [b-hebrew] Again on hireq/sere
What I mean is that you may remove all (ALL!) the dgeshim and you
will not miss them. The dgeshim were used, methinks, as reading props
much earlier than the NIQUYD and they became superfluous with the
introduction of the punctuation. The NAKDANIYM left them in place out
of reverence for a much older tradition.

1. YAMIYM in Gen. 4:3 is punctuated by a qamatz, while in Ps. 8:9 it
is punctuated by a patax.

2. DAMIYM in Ex. 4:25 is punctuated by a qamatz. The dagesh in BATIYM
is, indeed, unusual.

3. SUSIYM in 2Sam. 15:1 is indeed without the expected dagesh, but
SUS is always written with a middle W (here is the only place it is
written lacking), a W which is possibly lost here.

>> Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Apr 15, 2011, at 1:43 AM, Pere Porta wrote:

> Isaac,
>
> what do you mean by "the dagesh is not a part of the NIQUD"?
>
> I brought here some months ago the difference between
>
> 1. YFMIYM, days (Gn 4:3)
> and
> 2. YAM.IYM, seas (Ps 8:9)
>
> Why the dagesh does not belong to the niqud?
>
> We have
>
> 1. DFMIYM, bloods (Ex 4:25) (no dagesh) and
>
> 2. BFT.IYM, houses (Ex 1:21) (dagesh).
>
> We have SWSIYM, horses (2Sa 15:1) (no dagesh) versus DWB.IYM, bears
> (2K 2:24) (dagesh).
>
> And there are many more like these...
>
> How do you explain this if the dagesh is not a part of the niqud?
> 2011/4/15 Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
> A hirek is followed by a dagesh. The dagesh ("forte") is, in my
> opinion, no more than an ancient cue for the hireq, as in IWER,
> 'blind'. In other words, the dagesh is not a part of the NIQUD.

> On Apr 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Pere Porta wrote:
>> Are there in Hebrew nouns, adjectives,
>> adverbs... having ONLY a hireq in their first syllable and a sere
>> in their
>> second syllable (no dagesh, no shewa, no patah furtivum... at all!)?
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page