To: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A question for Isaac Fried
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:51:15 -0400
You are right, yet factually, I still notice that the dagesh in piel
is after a xiriq, as expected. In DIBAR-TIY, 'I spoke', for instance,
there is a dagesh "forte" in the B following a xiriq, and a
"postponed" dagesh, or a dagesh "lene", in the T, following a lagging
behind patax.
You are also right in saying that a dagesh forte is always present in
second radical, of say, DBR, even if marked by a schwa, but still,
this dagesh faithfully follows a patax or a xiriq, for instance,
DIBRAH, 'she spoke'. This is why Hebrew grammarians call it a dagesh
TABNITIY, yet the name says nothing beyond the observable.
The dagesh in pual follows a qubuc, also as expected. In KUBAD-TIY,
'I was honored', for instance, there is a dagesh "forte" in the B
following a xiriq, and a "postponed" dagesh, or a dagesh "lene", in
the T following a lagging behind patax.
The dagesh in hitpael follows a patax, also as expected. In HI-ZDAQAP-
TIY, 'I stood up', for instance, there is a dagesh "lene" in the D,
following a lagging xiriq, a dagesh "forte" in the Q, following a
patax, and a dagesh "lene" in the T, following a lagging behind
patax. The Z and the P, marked by schwa, are un-dageshed.
and so on.
But there are exceptions: there is a dagesh in the G of XOGU,
following a xolam.
We see that a dagesh follows HA-, yet it is absent in HA-MDABR-IYM
הַמְדַבְּרִים of Ex.6:27. Why?
In any event, I am not passing judgement on what causes what, only
stating what I see.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On May 17, 2011, at 12:38 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:
how about: piel always has a dagesh forte on the second consonant ?
(except for gutturals etc)