Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

I firmly believe that the earlier dagesh fixed the later NIQUD and  
not vice versa,
and that the dagesh has nothing to do with the BINYAN. In case the  
NIQUD contravenes
the rules (as I understand them) of the dagesh, then this means that  
the NAQDANIYM
overruled an older tradition in preference of their own.
For instance, the lack of dagesh in בִּכְבֹדִי BI-KBOD-IY  
of  Ex. 29:43, suggests that the xiriq
under the B is possibly artificial. Also, וְלִכְבוֹדִי W- 
LI-KBOD-IY of Ish. 43:7.
Also, נִדְבַת NI-DB-AT of Deu. 16:10. Also בִגְדוֹ BI-GD- 
O of 2Ki 4:39.
Also, קִרְבוּ QIRB-U of Ex.6:9.

There is a dot in the letter Q of בִקֵּשׁ BIQE$ of Deu. 13:11,  
as expected after a xiriq,
but בִּקְשָׁה BIQ$-AH of Qoh. 7:28 is, indeed, dageshless.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 13, 2012, at 4:13 AM, Pere Porta wrote:

> (First of all, be more accurate, please: your first quotation  
> shloud be Gn 26:15 and not 21:15)
> Indeed, verbs ML) (fill), BQ$ (seek out) and HLL (praise) make an  
> exception: they take no dagesh in the pi'el forms.
> But, as we know, the exceptions confirm the general rule (to take  
> dagesh): look at http://www.oham.net/out/S-t/S-t0316.html
>
> As regards QIRBU of Ex 16:9, I do not exactly know why the B lacks  
> dagesh.
> Now, regarding QIRBO of Ex 12:9: it follows the usual pattern of  
> those segolates having segol in the first syllable and segol in the  
> second syllable (though we must accept that there are some  
> exceptions to this, as in 2K 4:39, BIGDW).
>
>  Friendly,
>
> Pere Portat
>
> 2012/5/13 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Pere Porta