Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

1. You are right that all these jussive forms: GOLU גֹּלּוּ  
SOBU סֹבּוּ SOLU סֹלּוּ (but what about the next PANU  
פַּנּוּ ?) are with an "unexpected" dagesh. Still, I cannot  
bring myself to believe that this dagesh is placed there (causing,  
incidentally, the reading B instead of V) to "remind the reader" that  
SOBU "comes from" SBB. Otherwise, reader will not not know what SOBU  
means? It is also not clear to me if the common wisdom says that the  
dagesh refers to a missing written B only, or if it claims that a  
vocal memorial, in the reading SOB-BU, is also counseled.
And in Job 6:20, is BO$U actually "from" B$ or "from" B$$? And what  
does it matter?
By the way, the new "official" common wisdom now, concerning the  
dagesh after HA-, is that it is not there to "remind the reader" of a  
missing L (as in Arabic), or a missing N (as in "Phoenician"), but  
rather to "preserve" the patax from smudging.

2. The qamqc "qatan" is, in my opinion, an invention (from readings  
in the LXX?). I have never heard CAHARAYIM, 'noon', pronounced  
otherwise.

3. The YAXOGU יָחוֹגּוּ 'they reeled', of Ps. 107:27 is also  
"from" XGG?

I think that the dagesh is nothing more than an ancient diacritical  
marking, preceding the NIQUD by many years. I don't believe that the  
NAQDANIYM (probably Karaites) would have dared changing the form of a  
Hebrew letter in the Hebrew sacred book by putting a dot inside  
(inside!) it. The NAQDANIYM built their NIKUD around an already  
existing system of dgeshiym, yet it is conceivable that occasionally  
their reading slightly deviated from another, earlier, MASORAH.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 18, 2011, at 12:44 AM, Pere Porta wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.