Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

You are right, yet factually, I still notice that the dagesh in piel  
is after a xiriq, as expected. In DIBAR-TIY, 'I spoke', for instance,  
there is a dagesh "forte" in the B following a xiriq, and a  
"postponed" dagesh, or a dagesh "lene", in the T, following a lagging  
behind patax.
You are also right in saying that a dagesh forte is always present in  
second radical, of say, DBR, even if marked by a schwa, but still,  
this dagesh faithfully follows a patax or a xiriq, for instance,  
DIBRAH, 'she spoke'. This is why Hebrew grammarians call it a dagesh  
TABNITIY, yet the name says nothing beyond the observable.

The dagesh in pual follows a qubuc, also as expected. In KUBAD-TIY,  
'I was honored', for instance, there is a dagesh "forte" in the B  
following a xiriq, and a "postponed" dagesh, or a dagesh "lene", in  
the T following a lagging behind patax.

The dagesh in hitpael follows a patax, also as expected. In HI-ZDAQAP- 
TIY, 'I stood up', for instance, there is a dagesh "lene" in the D,  
following a lagging xiriq, a dagesh "forte" in the Q, following a  
patax, and a dagesh "lene" in the T, following a lagging behind  
patax. The Z and the P, marked by schwa, are un-dageshed.

and so on.

But there are exceptions: there is a dagesh in the G of XOGU,  
following a xolam.

We see that a dagesh follows HA-, yet it is absent in HA-MDABR-IYM  
הַמְדַבְּרִים of Ex.6:27. Why?

In any event, I am not passing judgement on what causes what, only  
stating what I see.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 17, 2011, at 12:38 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:

> how about: piel always has a dagesh forte on the second consonant ?
> (except for gutturals etc)