isaac, how about: piel always has a dagesh forte on the second consonant ? (except for gutturals etc)
this is true in past, present, future, infinitive, and even in non-verbal units derived from piel: $ILUXIM, TIPUL, DIBUR, DIBER, RIPUD, SIPUR, SIPORET, QIBUL, QIBOLET, $IPUC, NIQUD, DIGU$, RIGU$, XILUL, ZIMUN, QABLANUT, CABA(, NAQDANUT, etc etc this seems to be part of the definition of piel. clearly, XOQ HAHAVAROT precedes this dagesh with a "short vowel", and then (methinks) you put the cart before the horse and justify the dagesh by the vowel, when clearly it is the other way around. for the dagesh is ALWAYS there, past, future, present, infinitive, non-verbal - but the nyqud changes all the time. SIPER: xiriq, SUPAR: qubuc, MESAPER: patax etc etc a similar phenomenon can be found in hitpael: past, present, future, infinitive and most non-verbal units unless there is an additional problem with XOQ HAHAVAROT. for example: HI$TAKER, $IKOR but $IKhRUT. nir cohen De: Isaac Fried <[email protected]> Cópia: Hebrew <[email protected]> Para: James Spinti <[email protected]> Data: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:52:01 -0400 Assunto: Re: [b-hebrew] A question for Isaac Fried Please, don't give up. I am really, really interested in hearing an explanation for the dagesh in the second L of L$LXNW לְשַׁלְּחֵנוּ 'to send us away', of Ex 13:15 and the M of &MXNW שַׂמְּחֵנוּ 'gladden us', of Ps 90:15. I promise not to argue with you about it, I will just listen. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
