Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

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.