Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] YHB does it exist for Biblical Hebrew?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew list <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] YHB does it exist for Biblical Hebrew?
  • Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 11:33:21 -0400

In my opinion there are no such things as a dagesh "lene" and dagesh "forte", as well as a schwa "mobile". The dagesh is not a part of the NIQUD.

Indeed, in Prov. 3:1-3 we encounter תִּשְׁכָּח TI$KAX with a dot in the letter K following a xiriq under the letter T, then we encounter יִצֹּר YICOR with a dot in the letter C following a xirik under the letter Y, then we encounter לִבֶּךָ with a dot in the letter B following a xiriq under the letter L. But we encounter no dot in the letter B of כָּתְבֵם KATBEM following a qamac under the letter K.

Indeed, in Dan. 1:4 we encounter וּלְלַמְּדָם ULLAMDAM with a dot in the letter M following a patax under the second letter L, and consequently with no (superfluous) second dot in the letter D. But, כַּשְׂדִּים KASDIYM is with a dot in the letter D following a patax in the letter K. The same happens in אִבְּדָם IBDAM in 2Ki. 13:7, where a second dot in the D would be unnecessary.

Why there is no dot in the first letter M of וַיְשִׂמֵם WAYSIMEM I don't know.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 10, 2012, at 1:16 AM, Pere Porta wrote:

Have you ever read or heard, Isaac, about the consonants «begadkefat»?
These usually take dagesh after shewa. This is the case of all the words you provide in your post.
This is the so called «dagesh lene», the light dagesh: it points out to the uttering of the consonant (hard versus soft)
Now... there are some exceptions to this rule. And so, in Pr 3::3 we find KTBM, write them (you, male)! No dagesh in the B.
And in Dn 1:4 we find WLLMDM (no dagesh in the D) and in 2K 13:7 we find )BDAM (he destroyed them) (no dagesh in the D)...
I do not know, here and now, the cause of this different behaviour.... Maybe someone on this list can tell and illustrate us about it...
But precedently I wrote on the «dagesh forte», the strong dagesh! Namely the dagesh put inside consonants other than the begadkefat.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page