Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Petr Tomasek <tomasek AT etf.cuni.cz>]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:36:44AM -0400, Isaac Fried wrote:
> 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


This is nonsense: In both the Babylonian and Palestinian punctuation
systems dagesh (and raphe) signs are present which look completelly
different to the Tiberian signs. I.e. the dot in the letter can by
no mean be some "ancient" or "pre-masoretic" sign.

Petr Tomasek