I can just see this thread spinning out of control and plummeting to theThank you George, for lassoing the topic back on point. :)
earth. Let's get it back on track.
Does anyone have anything further to offer in response to John Stevens'
original questions:
I was wondering, does the presence/absence of the dagesh alone change
the meaning of the word in any way?
Dear John,I'm still at a lost as to why my question isn't making sense. I am talking about needed data to translate words.
You can't go putting forth examples such as the ones below as disproving the fact that the definite article in BH is /haC-/ before firstly understanding the phonetic conditioning surrounding the realisation of the /haC-/ morpheme. Please either accept that the morpheme /haC-/ has several phonologically conditioned allomorphs [haC-], [ha-], and [he-] or set forth a more convincing arguement as to why you assert that the definite article in BH is not /haC-/ but rather /ha-/.
It's not the presence of a dagesh that can change a word. It is the.......
form of a word that determines whether or not a dagesh is required for
WRITING. This is an orthographical issue.
This is why we have to write ?????? )AT.FH and not ????? )ATFH.....
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.