You are right, yet factually, I still notice that the dagesh in piel is after a xiriq, as expected. In DIBAR-TIY, 'I spoke', for instance, there is a dagesh "forte" in the B following a xiriq, and a "postponed" dagesh, or a dagesh "lene", in the T, following a lagging behind patax. You are also right in saying that a dagesh forte is always present in second radical, of say, DBR, even if marked by a schwa, but still, this dagesh faithfully follows a patax or a xiriq, for instance, DIBRAH, 'she spoke'. This is why Hebrew grammarians call it a dagesh TABNITIY, yet the name says nothing beyond the observable.
The dagesh in pual follows a qubuc, also as expected. In KUBAD-TIY, 'I was honored', for instance, there is a dagesh "forte" in the B following a xiriq, and a "postponed" dagesh, or a dagesh "lene", in the T following a lagging behind patax. The dagesh in hitpael follows a patax, also as expected. In HI-ZDAQAP- TIY, 'I stood up', for instance, there is a dagesh "lene" in the D, following a lagging xiriq, a dagesh "forte" in the Q, following a patax, and a dagesh "lene" in the T, following a lagging behind patax. The Z and the P, marked by schwa, are un-dageshed. and so on. But there are exceptions: there is a dagesh in the G of XOGU, following a xolam. We see that a dagesh follows HA-, yet it is absent in HA-MDABR-IYM הַמְדַבְּרִים of Ex.6:27. Why? In any event, I am not passing judgement on what causes what, only stating what I see. Isaac Fried, Boston University On May 17, 2011, at 12:38 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote: > how about: piel always has a dagesh forte on the second consonant ? > (except for gutturals etc) _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
