Dear all,
because this is an issue on debate since many days now, I felt allowed to clear away all the preceding messages of yours. Of course, not as a sign of contempt but for the sake or clarity.
I think I understand what our friend John Steven is asking for.
1. Let us take the word L:B"N we find in 1Ch 22:10. It means 'to son'
2. Now, suppose the word LAB."N, which does not appear in the Bible. It means 'to THE son'.
3. Let us now take LFBFN, (male) white (Gn 30:35)
4. And now we take LEB.EN, a modern noun meaning 'yogurt'
5. Finally, let us consider LIB.FN, which does not appear in the bible. It means 'their heart' (of females) [compare with the analogous word for males in Hos 10:2]
In the five cases the consonants are the same. The vowels and the DAGESH are not the same.
If we write in the hasar haniqud we could, for the sake of clarity, put a dagesh into the consonant B of the words 2, 4 and 5. But not into the B of words 1 and 3. (In 2 we could otherwise add a patah under the lamed).
So, the plain sense of all this is: yes, the dagesh is meaningful because through writing it down we define the real meaning of a given word so that it not to be mistaken for another; it isn't a mere device to help or improve the pronunciation.
Now... the dagesh is meaningful not always but only in some cases.
John, maybe this is what you're asking for?
Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.