First we need to agree on the textual facts (facts!), then we will move on to the explanations.
Isaac Fried, Boston University On May 17, 2011, at 8:58 AM, James Spinti wrote: > Wouldn't it be simpler to just accept the traditional explanations? > Why create all kinds of new rules to support your theories? > > James > > ________________________________ > James Spinti > Marketing Director, Book Sales Division > Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years > Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies > jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com > Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com > Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226 > Fax: 574-269-6788 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:b-hebrew- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Isaac Fried > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:52 AM > To: Pere Porta > Cc: Hebrew Forum > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] A question for Isaac Fried > > Indeed, the fact of the matter is that a dagesh "forte" is routinely > found ("as expected") following a patax, a xiriq, and a qubuc > (occasionally also a segol), but not: > 1. if the following letter is a "guttural" > 2. if the following letter is marked by a schwa > 3. a dagesh "forte" is also missing (in my opinion superfluous) in > "full" or plene writhing, thus CIPOR (sans yod), 'bird' is with a > dagesh in the letter P, but KIYTOR (with a yod), 'steam, vapor', is > with no dagesgh > > If the letter following a patax, a xiriq, or a qubuc is marked by a > schwa, then the dagesh "moves" forward and nestles itself in the next > letter. Such a "postponed" dagesh we term "lene". It is conceivable > that the dagesh "lene" used to appear, as the dagesh "forte" does, in > most letters, but now we find it only in the BGDKPT letters, for > which it changes the reading. > > You are right in saying that there are many instances of a letter > marked by schwa, yet still with a dagesh in it. Or, instances of a > missing dagesh "lene". In my opinion it has all to do with the fact > that the dagesh is an earlier reading prop, and is not part of the > nikud. > > If dagesh appears in a letter marked by a schwa, then no second > "lene" dagesh is needed. A dagesh in a letter marked by a schwa is > routine after HA- and MI-. Notice: MIDBAR, 'desert, saying', with no > dagesh in the D, but a dagesh in the B (causing us to read it as an > English B), yet MIDVAR, 'from DVAR', as in Ex. 23:7, with (with!) a > dagesh in the D, but with no dagesh in the the letter Beth, causing > us to read it is a the English V. > > I see no dagesh in SL)Y סַלְעִי 'my rock', of 2S 22:2, nor in > MQLY מַקְלִי 'my rod', of Zc 11:10 and 11:14. See here > > http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0.htm > > In Hos. 7:5 is see MALKENU with a dagesh in the letter K, yet in Hos. > 7:7 it is the notorious MALKEYHEM with no dagesh in the letter K. > Farther, in Hos. 7:8 I see UGA עֻגָה 'cake', with a qubuc under > the letter Ayin, but with no dagesh in the letter G "as expected". > Today we write עוּגה in full. > > It is indeed as you say: L$LXNW לְשַׁלְּחֵנוּ 'to send us > away', of Ex 13:15, and &MXNW שַׂמְּחֵנוּ 'gladden us', of > Ps 90:15 with a dagesh in the letters L, and M, respectively. > > Isaac Fried, Boston University > > On May 17, 2011, at 1:23 AM, Pere Porta wrote: > >> To our friend Isaac Fried. >> >> You often claim that after a patah one finds dagesh "*as >> expected*" (in your >> words). >> I see that many words having patah are, indeed, followed by dagesh. >> And so, >> >> -L$LXNW, to send us away (Ex 13:15) >> -&MXNW, (you, male) gladden us! (Ps 90:15) >> and many other. >> >> But I remark too that often there is no dagesh after patah (and I >> know that >> gutturals aren't dageshed) >> And so >> >> -MLKNW, our king (Hos 7:5) >> -SL)Y, my rock (2S 22:2) >> -MQLY, my rod (Zc 11:10) >> and many other. >> >> Could you clarify your position hereon? >> >> 1. When, under which conditions a dagesh comes in the letter that >> is after a >> patah? >> 2. Are there some exceptions to the "rule" you may state? >> 3. If there are some exceptions: which these are? >> >> Kind regards from >> >> Pere Porta >> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain) >> >> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> b-hebrew mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Pere Porta >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
