Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

(Isaac Fried)

>
> 2. This is the common wisdom explanation: that the dagesh in the G of
> XOGU, 'celebrate', is to show that this G is one for two.
>


> (Pere Porta)


You should better write, Isaac, on GOLW, roll away (you, males)! (Js 10:18)
or on SOBW, (you, males) surround! (Ps 48:13) or on SOLW, raise up (you,
males)! (Is 57:14).... rather than on XOGW, which is not found in the Bible.


(Isaac Fried)

In Na. 2:1 we find XAGIY חָגִּי with a qamac under the X and still a dagesh
in the G. In Ex. 12:14 it is TXAGUHU תְּחָגֻּהוּ also with
a qamac. In Ps. 107:27 we find YAXOGU יָחוֹגּוּ in the sense
of reel, written with a "full" xolam, yet still with a dagesh in the G.

(Pere Porta)

The A  (as you write it) in XAGIY is not a qamac; it is a qamac qatan = a
reduced holam.
The same for TXAGUHU: it is a qamac qatan = a reduced holam.


And yes, all these dageshes are to show the doubling of the consonant (one
for two, as you write): all these verbs are verbs "kefulym", doubled,
ayin-ayin.

(Isaac Fried)


> In Gen. 8:1 we find VA-YA$OK-U וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ with a patax
> in the V, a dagesh in the Y, and another dagesh in the K.  Here too,
> the common wisdom explanation is that the dagesh in this K is to show
> that it is one for two.  I can not bring myself to believe that a dot
> was inserted into the bosom of the Hebrew letter K just to inform us
> that a second one is hiding under the first. For what?
>
(Pere Porta)

*For what?*, you ask.
Well, compare SOBW, surround! of Ps 48:13 with BO$W, they were ashamed, of
Jb 6:20. Both are read paroxytone.
The dagesh in SOBW reminds the reader that it comes from a verb ayin-ayin
(SBB, Ez 42:19) while the lack of dagesh in BO$W tells the reader that it
comes from a verb ayin-waw (BO$, Jr 6:15) and not from a verb ayin-ayin
(B$$, an unexisting stem here but a possible one to exist...)
Really, the dagesh is to show "one for two" rather than to hide something.

Kind regards from

Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)

>
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On May 17, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:
>
> > isaac,
> >
> > >>> But there are exceptions: there is a dagesh in the G of XOGU,
> > following a xolam.
> >
> > can you send me the reference? clearly if it comes from XGG then,
> > from my point of view,
> > a dagesh on the G is required! if it comes from XWG then i cannot
> > explain it.
> >
> > >>> We see that a dagesh follows HA-, yet it is absent in HA-MDABR-
> > IYM הַמְדַבְּרִים of Ex.6:27. Why?
> >
> > maybe the second dagesh forte is the reason why the first dagesh
> > forte was removed.
> > just for the argument, let's assume dagesh forte did signal
> > consonant gemination. then it would be difficult
> > to maintain BOTH geminations in sequence for reasons of meter, in
> > HAMEDABRIM. try it!
> >
> > now, since the second dagesh is SHORSHI, the first dagesh is
> > sacrificed.
> >
> > voila...
> >
> > nir cohen
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>



-- 
Pere Porta