Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

ששון מרגליות

In my opinion the "dagesh hazak" is a grammatical fiction. There is no, and there never was, "gemination" in Hebrew. I don't, even remotely believe that the NAKDANIYM (the "masoretes") would dare place a dot in the interior of a Hebrew letter, and this, to merely mark a make-believe "gemination".

I think that the dot in the letter is an ancient, pre-niqud, sign to mark the vowels patakh, qubutz, khiriq. It is not needed in plene spelling. Indeed, we have the verbal pa'ul form KTUBOT כְּתוּבוֹת 'are written', spelled in Hebrew with a full U, a shuruk, following the first letter T, and indeed, with no dagesh in the letter B. On the other hand, כְּתֻבָּה KTUBAH, 'written marriage contract', plural: כְּתֻבּוֹת is written XASER, with a qubutz, and hence the "dagesh hazak" in the letter B.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 26, 2013, at 6:43 AM, Sasson Margaliot wrote:

1) Was doubling of consonants not present in Biblical Hebrew and/or Tiberian Hebrew?

2) What English term do you prefer for consonants with "Dagesh hazak"?

> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Five Rules for root-identification
>

> Isaac Fried wrote:

> It is "geminated" only if you "geminate" it.

> Isaac Fried, Boston University

>

>> On Jun 25, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Sasson Margaliot wrote:

>> Not surprisingly, the root-final consonant is geminated in K.TuB.BoT 

>>