Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

1. A theory is not a theorem; a theory requires no proof.

2. Linguistics is no science.

3. Looking at today's Hebrew newspapers makes me think that the NIKUD  
has not yet been invented.

4. Syllable is a fiction.

5. "Akkadian" is a presumed language; one may say to me whatever one  
wants about "Akkadian" or Summerian" or HIttitic" or "Amoritic" or  
"Jebusitic", or whatever not, I have no way of verifying it.

6. You have no proof that the "Massorates" added the dagesh; it is a  
tentative theory.

7. But we need no theories; Look at the HB and you will see that the  
dagesh systematically follows a patax, a xirik, and a qubuc, and  
occasionally a segol. The nikud was put in according to the  
preexisting dagesh. I dismiss as fantasies all this talk about  
"missing" consonants, "doubling" of consonants, etc.

8. Your theory that the dagesh and the niqud were introduced at the  
same time is a mere theory. You have, of course, the right to think  
that your theory is "more likely" than mine. I, for myself, don't  
believe that the NAQDANIYM, in spite of being probably Karaites,  
would have dared to modify the shape of a Hebrew letter in the  
holiest of books by inserting a dot INSIDE it.

9. The reasonable (I am not the only one thinking so) assumption that  
the dagesh preceded the niqud explains EVERY facet of the enigma of  
the dagesh neatly, completely, and logically.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 14, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:

> isaac,
>
> you do not have to summarize your theory - you have done so so many  
> times before. but endless repetition does not prove it is correct.  
> however, each time somebody tries to pursue an idea
> which includes the words PLENE or FORTE we fall on the same  
> stumbling block just because you
> do not approve.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> your version is a one-upon-a-time fairy tale with no scientific  
> backup.
>
> 1) you say that dagesh preceded niqud: is there evidence of any  
> early hebrew text with dagesh but without niqud? we are speaking of  
> a span of some 1000 years or more!
>
> 2) BGDKPT:  hardening GDT in beginning of syllable would be hardly  
> acceptable by any serious linguist. as to hardening BKP: it seems  
> unlikely to me that BAYIT or BWR or BEN or BAT or BIB or BAR or BLY  
> (or the phoneme B- in general)  had ever been soft. and so are the  
> K in KY, KAF or KOKAB, PAR or PARAH. although you might dismiss  
> this as irrelevant, many of these words go back to akkadian (and  
> many other non-alphabetic semitic texts) where their pronounciation  
> is pretty much known.
>
> the common logic of linguistics is usually inverted (i.e.  
> softening): P becomes F, B becomes V, K becomes Kh etc. this is  
> attested in many languages (i think it is called Grim's law). why  
> would hebrew be the only exception?
> curiously, arabic chose hard B, soft F and K appears as both soft  
> and hard.
>
> 3) although you want us to believe that dagesh preceded niqud, you  
> also want us to believe that it was only used before patax, xiriq  
> and qubuc, before these formally existsd.
>
> 4) of course i agree that masoretes added a dagesh when Y was  
> omitted, as in BA-CINWR and did not add it when Y was present, as  
> in HACYNOQ. here, they were bound by the inconsistencies of BH  
> niqud-less spelling: KTIV MALE/XASER. observe, though,
> that this inconsistency implied (in their logic) changes in both  
> dagesh and niqud, so that the theory that dagesh and nyqud were  
> formally introduced at the same time, and probably by the same  
> people, seems more likely than yours.
>
> 5) as to the original BH spelling (ShYLMU vs ShYLEMU), your guess  
> is as good as any. of course you would not put any stress
> on the L, but you will have hard time proving us that such a stress  
> did not exist. the dagesh, on the other hand, MIGHT
> hint that it did exist, if we assume that it did reflect some truly  
> hebrew characteristic.
>
> 6) the idea that the dagesh came from the dot which separated words  
> is, i believe, an anachronism. i suspect that the
> separating dot disappeared from semitic texts LONG LONG before the  
> dagesh was canonized.
>
> nir cohen
>
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:04:10 -0400, Isaac Fried wrote
> > 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..
> >