Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 113, Issue 9

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 113, Issue 9
  • Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 19:04:10 -0400

I will summarize my thinking about the dagesh

1. Once upon a time, long before the invention of the NIKUD the first letter of every written Hebrew word was marked by a dot. With time, Hebrew readers got into the habit of instinctively, as we do today, hardening the BGDKPT letters upon the sight of an internal dot. As the writing techniques improved, this initial dot was abandoned, except in the BGDKPT letters.
This left us with the silly legacy of some MBIYNIM (as per instruction of the Hebrew "Academy") reading -KALAH, 'bride' as - XALAH, and other same such droll readings.

2. Once upon a time, long before the invention of the NIKUD a dot was introduced into a letter following a present day patax, xiriq, and qubuc, to serve as a, pre-nikud, reading cue. The dot is not needed in plene writing, where Y and W serve a similar purpose. Hence בַּצִּנּוֹר BA-CINOR of 2Sam. 5:8 is with a dot in the letter N, while הַצִּינֹק HA-CIYNOK of Jer. 29:26 is with no dot in the letter N.

3. In case the patax, xiriq, or qubuc are followed by a letter with (as we mark it today) a schwa, the dot is relegated to the next letter. At first, this shift was done to (nearly) all letters, but later on, also this dot was abandoned, except in the BGDKPT letters.

4. If the canonical dagesh rules are forfeited, it means that the extant spelling is changed, or that the NAKDANIM deliberately overruled the old reading implied by the dagesh. I would not exclude the possibility, for instance, that the form שִלְּמוּ $ILMU was originally שִׁלֵּמוּ $ILEMU, as in Ish. 19:21, and hence the dagesh in the letter L.

5. Otherwise, the dagesh has nothing to do with open or closed syllables, with "missing" consonants, with the "doubling" of consonants, etc..

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 13, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:

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).





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page