Isaac, what do you mean by "the dagesh is not a part of the NIQUD"?
I brought here some months ago the difference between 1. YFMIYM, days (Gn 4:3) and 2. YAM.IYM, seas (Ps 8:9) Why the dagesh does not belong to the niqud? We have 1. DFMIYM, bloods (Ex 4:25) (no dagesh) and 2. BFT.IYM, houses (Ex 1:21) (dagesh). We have SWSIYM, horses (2Sa 15:1) (no dagesh) versus DWB.IYM, bears (2K 2:24) (dagesh). And there are many more like these... How do you explain this if the dagesh is not a part of the niqud? Pere Porta (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain) 2011/4/15 Isaac Fried <[email protected]> > A hirek is followed by a dagesh. The dagesh ("forte") is, in my opinion, no > more than an ancient cue for the hireq, as in IWER, 'blind'. In other words, > the dagesh is not a part of the NIQUD. > > Isaac Fried, Boston University > > On Apr 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Pere Porta wrote: > > Are there in Hebrew nouns, adjectives, > > adverbs... having ONLY a hireq in their first syllable and a sere in their > > second syllable (no dagesh, no shewa, no patah furtivum... at all!)? > > > -- Pere Porta _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
