Biblical Hebrew Forum

["James Spinti" <JSpinti AT Eisenbrauns.com>]

Wouldn't it be simpler to just accept the traditional explanations? Why 
create all kinds of new rules to support your theories? 

James

________________________________
James Spinti
Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
Fax: 574-269-6788 

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org 
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Isaac Fried
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:52 AM
To: Pere Porta
Cc: Hebrew Forum
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A question for Isaac Fried

Indeed, the fact of the matter is that a dagesh "forte" is routinely  
found ("as expected") following a patax, a xiriq, and a qubuc  
(occasionally also a segol), but not:
1. if the following letter is a "guttural"
2. if the following letter is marked by a schwa
3. a dagesh "forte" is also missing (in my opinion superfluous) in  
"full" or plene writhing, thus CIPOR (sans yod), 'bird' is with a  
dagesh in the letter P, but KIYTOR (with a yod), 'steam, vapor', is  
with no dagesgh

If the letter following a patax, a xiriq, or a qubuc is marked by a  
schwa, then the dagesh "moves" forward and nestles itself in the next  
letter. Such a "postponed" dagesh we term "lene". It is conceivable  
that the dagesh "lene" used to appear, as the dagesh "forte" does, in  
most letters, but now we find it only in the BGDKPT letters, for  
which it changes the reading.

You are right in saying that there are many instances of a letter  
marked by schwa, yet still with a dagesh in it. Or, instances of a  
missing dagesh "lene". In my opinion it has all to do with the fact  
that the dagesh is an earlier reading prop, and is not part of the  
nikud.

If dagesh appears in a letter marked by a schwa, then no second  
"lene" dagesh is needed. A dagesh in a letter marked by a schwa is  
routine after HA- and MI-. Notice: MIDBAR, 'desert, saying', with no  
dagesh in the D, but a dagesh in the B (causing us to read it as an  
English B), yet MIDVAR, 'from DVAR', as in Ex. 23:7, with (with!) a  
dagesh in the D, but with no dagesh in the the letter Beth, causing  
us to read it is a the English V.

I see no dagesh in SL)Y סַלְעִי 'my rock', of 2S 22:2, nor in  
MQLY מַקְלִי 'my rod', of Zc 11:10 and 11:14. See here

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0.htm

In Hos. 7:5 is see MALKENU with a dagesh in the letter K, yet in Hos.  
7:7 it is the notorious MALKEYHEM with no dagesh in the letter K.  
Farther, in Hos. 7:8 I see UGA עֻגָה 'cake', with a qubuc under  
the letter Ayin, but with no dagesh in the letter G "as expected".  
Today we write עוּגה in full.

It is indeed as you say: L$LXNW לְשַׁלְּחֵנוּ 'to send us  
away', of Ex 13:15, and &MXNW שַׂמְּחֵנוּ 'gladden us', of  
Ps 90:15 with a dagesh in the letters L, and M, respectively.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 17, 2011, at 1:23 AM, Pere Porta wrote:

>  To our friend Isaac Fried.
>
> You often claim that after a patah one finds dagesh "*as  
> expected*" (in your
> words).
> I see that many words having patah are, indeed, followed by dagesh.
> And so,
>
> -L$LXNW, to send us away (Ex 13:15)
> -&MXNW, (you, male) gladden us! (Ps 90:15)
> and many other.
>
> But I remark too that often there is no dagesh after patah (and I  
> know that
> gutturals aren't dageshed)
> And so
>
> -MLKNW, our king (Hos 7:5)
> -SL)Y, my rock (2S 22:2)
> -MQLY, my rod (Zc 11:10)
> and many other.
>
> Could you clarify your position hereon?
>
> 1. When, under which conditions a dagesh comes in the letter that  
> is after a
> patah?
> 2. Are there some exceptions to the "rule" you may state?
> 3. If there are some exceptions: which these are?
>
> Kind regards from
>
> Pere Porta
> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
>
>
>
>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Pere Porta
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew