Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

If I understand you correctly you are claiming that:

1. The Babylonian NIYQUD has an external sign (not an internal dot) for the "dagesh hazak".

2. The dot inside the letter was introduced by the NAKDANIYM (the "masoretes" of Tiberias), to denote, in the situation of a "dagesh hazak", the "gemination" of the consonant. 

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Petr Tomasek wrote:

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