Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

A dagesh follows a xiriq, a qubuc, and a patax. Just in Gen. 21 we find

וַיַּעַשׂ דִּבֵּר וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֶד  
לַמּוֹעֵד הַנּוֹלַד צִוָּה  
בְּהִוָּלֶד מִלֵּל יָלַדְתִּי  
וַיִּגְדַּל וַיִּגָּמַל מִשְׁתֶּה

The dagesh is redundant and superfluous and can, in my opinion, be  
safely ignored. The dagesg is, I think, but a vestige of an ancient,  
pre NIQUD, reading clues.

The word VA-HA-QIM-OTY וַהֲקִמֹתִי of Gen 17:19 is  
interesting. There is no dagesh in the H because it is an H, there is  
no dagesh in the Q because it follows a xatap, but the lack of dagesh  
in the M calls for an explanation.

In Prov. 8:24 we find HA+BAU הָטְבָּעוּ with a dagesh in the  
B, but I think the qamatz in the HA- is not "original".
In Prov. 8:27 we find בְּחֻקוֹ חוּג עַל פְּנֵי  
תְהוֹם (translated by KJ as: When He drew a circle on the face  
of the deep) with B-XUQ-O punctuated with a qubuc, yet with no dagesh  
in the Q.  In verse 29 we find בְּשׂוּמוֹ לַיָּם  
חֻקּוֹ וּמַיִם לֹא יַעַבְרוּ פִיו  
בְּחוּקוֹ מוֹסְדֵי אָרֶץ (translated by KJ as:  
When He assigned to the sea its limit. So that the waters would not  
transgress His command. When He marked out the foundations of the  
earth), with XUQ-O having a dagesh in the Q, making some people think  
it is "from" XQQ The second XUK-O written with a shuruq and with no  
dagesh in the Q, making some people think it is "from" XUQ.
I think it has all to do with lost and added vowels.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Jun 2, 2011, at 1:54 AM, Pere Porta wrote:

>  Why Niph'al Infinitives construct have dagesh in the first root  
> consonant?
>
> We have, for some examples,
>
> HiGaMeL, be weaned (Gn 21:8)
> (l)HiNaCel, (to) be delivered (Hb 2:9)
> (b)HiNaGeF, (in) to be smitten (1K 8:33)
>
> Look also at (k)HiMeS, (as) to melt (Ps 68:3)
>
> As we often saw, usually the dagesh shows the doubling of a  
> consonant, so
> that we could say that dagesh = c + c -------- (c = consonant).
>
> But in the Niph'al Infinitives (*)... which is the function of this  
> dagesh?
> What does this dagesh mean here?
> Is this dagesh put here to distinguish this pattern from other similar
> patterns?
>
> Remark: The hiriq of prefix Hi- is rendered by a yud in the  
> unvowelized
> script.
>
> (*) And also in the Niph'al Infinitive absolute (look at Ex 22:3 or  
> at Jr
> 25:29) and in the Niph'al Imperative (look at Gn 19:17; Is 7:4...)
>
> Regards from
>
> >    --
> > Pere Porta
> > (Barcelona, Catalonia, Northeastern Spain)
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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