At 15:38 26/02/2005, Karyn Traphagen wrote:
Where is the dagesh in the middle root? The BHQ has a dagesh in the tet. Why?
Karyn:
Here you are into the complex field of textual witnesses.BHS has no dagesh, either in the qoph or in the tet.
In the case of the dagesh in the middle radical, turn to p.53 of Gesenius' Grammar, and you will find that the qoph _has_ a dagesh.
You will also find a reference to this example on p.171 where Gesenius goes back as far as David Kimchi [ a.k.a Radak ] who " with whom Delitzsch agrees, explains the form as Piel, with an irregular hataf qamats for a hataf patach, as in the reading of Ru. 2:2
So you can at least console yourself with the thought that discussion of this point goes back eight centuries <g>
As to your citing of BHQ I am surprised that you haven't checked the critical apparatus at the bottom of the page ...
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.