Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

1. A dagesh routinely follows a patax, a xirik, and a qubuc, in a  
letter not marked by a schwa.
2. There is no "quiescent" schwa nor "mobile" schwa in Hebrew, only  
schwa.
3. A closed syllable is closed, and an opened syllable is open. There  
is no need to open and close anything.
4. There is no, and there never was, short and long vowels in Hebrew.
5. The dagesh is a dead thing, it is but a remnant of an ancient  
reading hints system. Throw the dagesh out and you will not miss it.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Apr 21, 2011, at 6:04 PM, Uri Hurwitz wrote:

>  What about the poor Xiriq Xaser or the unfortunate Seghol - aren't  
> these  hitherto neglected short vowels expected to be followed by a  
> Dagesh, or in the case of all three, by a quiescent Sh'wa? In  
> short, don't they appear in what ancient grammerians called  
> 'closed' syllables?
>
>   Of course, some modern grammarians argue that the case is  
> opposite - that the Dagesh forte shortened the preceeding vowel for  
> phonetic reason.
> But this is another matter.
>
>   Humbly,
>
>   Uri Hurwitz                           Great Neck, NY
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I notice that in both examples a dagesh follows a patax as expected.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew