Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

What do you say to וַיְמַלְאוּם עָפָר WA-Y-MAL-UM  
APAR of Gen. 21:15, or to מִלְאוּ MIL-U of Num. 32:11?
And, why is there no dagesh in the B of קִרְבוּ QIRBU of Ex.  
16:9, but there is a dagesh
in the B of קִרְבּוֹ QIRBO of Ex. 12:9?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 13, 2012, at 1:40 AM, Pere Porta wrote:

> I do not understand, Isaac, why you do not take into account the  
> classical distinction between the dagesh forte and the dagesh lene.
> You say in your post of word סִתְּמוּם SITMWM (Gn 26:15)  
> and you try to get the reason for the dagesh into the T... without  
> any reference to the Pi'el form of this word...
> The T has dagesh because this is a Pi'el form, not because there is  
> a hirix before it...
> Compare this word with תִּפְשוּם TIP&WM (1K 20:18): its  
> pattern is exactly the same as that of SITMWM, the dagesh in the  
> second root consonant excepted... that being so not because of the  
> hirix but because in 1K 20:18 we have a Qal form (Imperative: seize  
> them!) while in Gn 26:15 we have a Pi'el form (Past: they stopped  
> them up).
>
> Regards from
>
> Pere Porta
> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Northeastern Spain)
> 2012/5/13 Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
> Well, I think it is so The dagesh, which I believe to be a pre NIKUD
> reading hinter, is not needed in plene writing. Indeed, SIYM is
> routinely written in full, and consequently with no dagesh, as the
> יְשִׂימָם YSIYMAM of Deut. 7:15. But in 2Ki 13:7 it is
> וַיְשִׂמֵם WAYSIMEM, and still with no dagesh. This means, I
> think, that at the time the dgeshim were introduced into the biblical
> text the word was written plene with a Y, which was lost later on.
>
> A similar fate befell the letter W of UGAB of Ps. 150:4, and hence
> the lack of a dagesh in the letter B following a qubuc.
>
> I think that there were two systems of dgeshim that got mixed
> together in our present text. In one system, a dot was placed after a
> qubuc, a patax or a xiriq even in a letter not followed by a vowel,
> for example, סִתְּמוּם SITMUM of Gen. 26:15 and
> וַיְסַתְּמוּם WAYSATMUM of Gen. 26:18. In the other
> system, a dagesh is not placed in a letter marked now by a schwa, for
> instance, וַאֲמֻשְׁךָ WA-AMU$KA of Gen. 27:21.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On May 10, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Isaac Fried wrote:
>
> > Why there is no dot in the first letter M of וַיְשִׂמֵם
> > WAYSIMEM I don't know.
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>
> --
> Pere Porta