Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

isaac, pere,

i suspect that both of you use a too schematic definition of dagesh as
understood by the dagshanim. the 1st millenium AD dagesh was undoubtedly
already divided into lene and forte, and its use was not just

1) reflecting hard and soft consonants (pere + as reflected by BGD-KPT);

2) a fantasy (isaac)

it indeed depended on fine elements of the word: root type, binyan, suffixes
etc. most of the examples which you bring can be explained out if one makes
the assumption that the use of dagesh was consistent, deriving everything else
from there. (+removing a VERY SMALL number of scribe errors). 

now, this does not imply that the dagesh represents faithfully BH. but it also
does not imply, alone, the opposite. this is where isaac's "arguments"
all fail.

>>> De: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
Cópia: B-Hebrew list <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Para: Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
Data: Thu, 10 May 2012 11:33:21 -0400
Assunto: Re: [b-hebrew] YHB does it exist for Biblical Hebrew?
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.

most examples given by isaac can be explained withing the rules of dagesh lene
and forte and so a "theory" which claims that BH did not use them
needs a more solid argument.

-------------------------

>> 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, 

a regular verb, in a regular declension. the syllables are 
TISh-KAX and so lene on BGD-KPT. 

----------------------------

>> then we encounter יִצֹּר YICOR with a dot in the letter C following a  
xirik under the letter Y, 

a P"Y verb where, clearly, dagesh represents the missing radical.
you might argue that roots are also not biblical. but by the time dagesh was
formally used (1st mill AD) roots were formally used too. 

--------------------------------

>> then we encounter לִבֶּךָ with a dot  
in the letter B following a xiriq under the letter L. 

some L-missing roots were classified in hebrew together with PLL and 
so the dagesh represents, in analogy, a "missing" radical. a proof of this
association (L-missing=PLL) is in word pairs such as LEV-LIBEV-LEVAV
(libavtini axoti etc), CAD-CYDED, XAG-XAGAG, ShOD-ShoODED etc. 
 
-------------------------------------

>> But we  
encounter no dot in the letter B of כָּתְבֵם KATBEM following  
a qamac under the letter K.

is there another verb in QAL with suffix -EM where 
a dagesh lene is present on the third radical? if not,
i claim that this is the regular smikhut form and not an
exception.

----------------------------

>> 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.  

dagesh forte: verb in PIEL.

-------------------------------

>> But, כַּשְׂדִּים KASDIYM is with a dot in the letter D  
following a patax in the letter K. 

not a verb, a foreign word. there was no reason forte to put dagesh 
on the Sin. so, BGD-KPT received lene.

--------------------------------

>> The same happens in  
אִבְּדָם IBDAM in 2Ki. 13:7, where a second dot in the D would  
be unnecessary.

dagesh forte: verb in PIEL. i know you HATE the idea, but the syllables here
are IB-BDAM. (i am speaking on first millenium AC!, where dagesh and syllables
were formally introduced) dagesh lene on D would require IB-B-DAM, leaving a
consonant B without a vowel, which (at that point in time) was considered
impossible.

---------------------------

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

pere already explained: no reason for forte, and not BGD-KPT for lene.
this (no lene on 3rd radical) seems to be the regular smixut form.

--------------------------------

nir cohen


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.
>