Isac Fried asked: > What made them place a dagesh in the T > of KATON-TIY of Genesis 32:11?
If I understand what you are asking, the reason is because the T is geminated. In this case, it is geminated because of an absorbed N. anti > atti Compare it to Arabic where N does not get absorbed. anta = anta; anti = anti; antunna = antunna So, for your word, we would have qat.onettiy Isaac wrote: > considering the astounding rate of change > of present-day Hebrew > (see the article on the fate of the xirik) > it is fair to assume that pure "proto-semitic" > did not last more than 50 years. You can't really assume that from present day change. Many forces act to cause language change, especially when you have a large influx of non-native speakers coming into the mix. Some of the most drastic changes on a language are caused by an influx of new speakers. Another force at work is modern Hebrew's recent "resurrection" with it not quite being the same language as was spoken 2500 years ago. Because of the different language rules at play in modern compared to biblical, it will take some time of change within the modern language as the language adjusts to the rules at play (where a sound is in relation to another, what kind of sound, and how it is perceived, articulated compared to another sound next to it, its importance within the word, and how the sound is emphasized will cause a "smoothing out" of sorts that will pressure some sounds to change to fit its new environment). Just as a language can change quite rapidly, it can also change quite slowly. It depends on the forces at work from within and from without the sphere of speakers. Isaac hypothesized: > [...] newly arrived, Karaites [...] Would also have some hypothesis on where they might have recently arrived from? -- Ratson Naharädama Denver, Colorado _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
