... Quite obviously, ancient sound was in between pure plosiveVadim, I will not stop this while you continue to reiterate this statement which is nonsense to a phonetician.
and fricative, whatever we might choose to call it.
Masoretes,The begedkefet second radical in hitpael is plosified, not geminated. NotThere is no such distinction. At least, there is none written by the
hitcabbed, but rather, hitca.bed. ...
The Masoretes wrote nothing about gemination ...
... or plosification. ...
... If we look
for possible universal meaning of dagesh kal and hazak, there is only one: a
stop, intermission. The Masoretes meant stop where they put dagesh. All our
notions of gemination or plosification are deductions or a tradition; there
is no evidence that the Masoretes heard gemination where they put dagesh.
this second radical takes dagesh whatever letter it is, except for the few
letters which never take dagesh.
No one argues that the second radical takes dagesh. The issue is, what that
dagesh means? And I say, the dagesh cannot mean "both" gemination and
plosification simultaneously, that hitcabbed (plosification and gemination)
is unpronounceable, though more aspirated hitcannes (gemination only) is
fine.
... where did the Masoretes heard such "relative plosification" of
second-in-a-row consonants? The translators of LXX heard no such thing.
Nor is "relative plosification" of second-in-a-row common in other Semitic
languages. ...
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.