You are right. The thought that the dagesh is an ancient diacritical marking independent of the NIKUD is indeed but a theory. There is not a shred of evidence to the "exact opposite" claim that the dagesh marks an obsolete (and apparently bizarre) vocal doubling of a consonant.
Isaac Fried, Boston University On Apr 15, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote: > in deciding whether the dagesh is essential to hebrew or not, > the first question is if it is older than the early 7th century > AD where the arabic dagesh was introduced. but even if it is > older, it would reflect first millenium AD and not first millenium > BC hebrew. so, isaac, if your question is about BH then your > conjecture has nothing to rely on and is as good as the exact > opposite. > > also, the linguistic elements do not serve only the context. often > they grow in contrast to a neighboring dialect. according to a well > known joke, you may change in modern english all d to t, all sh to > sch, all c to k, all u to au etc causing little damage. but at the > end you will get german instead of english. > > nir > > > >>>> Para: Pere Porta <[email protected]> > Data: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:11:51 -0400 > Assunto: Re: [b-hebrew] Again on hireq/sere > What I mean is that you may remove all (ALL!) the dgeshim and you > will not miss them. The dgeshim were used, methinks, as reading props > much earlier than the NIQUYD and they became superfluous with the > introduction of the punctuation. The NAKDANIYM left them in place out > of reverence for a much older tradition. > > 1. YAMIYM in Gen. 4:3 is punctuated by a qamatz, while in Ps. 8:9 it > is punctuated by a patax. > > 2. DAMIYM in Ex. 4:25 is punctuated by a qamatz. The dagesh in BATIYM > is, indeed, unusual. > > 3. SUSIYM in 2Sam. 15:1 is indeed without the expected dagesh, but > SUS is always written with a middle W (here is the only place it is > written lacking), a W which is possibly lost here. > >>> Isaac Fried, Boston University > > On Apr 15, 2011, at 1:43 AM, Pere Porta wrote: > >> 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? >> 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. > >> 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!)? >> > > _______________________________________________ > b-hebrew mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
