Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Yes. The facts are that the manuscripts have vowel points that agree with 
what we know from cognate languages to be the expected ones. The facts are 
that we have non-cognate languages that contain loanwords that agree with 
those vowel. And, the fact is that you will now claim that those are 
irrelevant...

I give up.

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: Isaac Fried [mailto:if AT math.bu.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 9:14 AM
To: James Spinti
Cc: Hebrew
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A question for Isaac Fried

First we need to agree on the textual facts (facts!), then we will  
move on to the explanations.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 17, 2011, at 8:58 AM, James Spinti wrote:

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