How do you see XUMCFH as different from these several words, which are
shaped exactly the same, and none of which have a dagesh in the second
radical?
Jason
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
Jason,_______________________________________________
XUCPAH and XUMCAH are of the same MI$QAL as are TUM)AH, GUZMAH, QUPSAH,
QU$YAH, and so on. This entire MI$QAL is sans dagesh, to avoid collision,
methinks, with the pual structure. The same is true of the MI$QAL of ZIMRAH,
singing', which is sans dagesh in the M, as opposed to the piel form ZIMRAH,
'she sang', which is with a dagesh in the M as per the rule.
All this has nothing to do with the BINYAN, nor with the purported
'gemination'.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.