(Isaac Fried) > > 2. This is the common wisdom explanation: that the dagesh in the G of > XOGU, 'celebrate', is to show that this G is one for two. >
> (Pere Porta) You should better write, Isaac, on GOLW, roll away (you, males)! (Js 10:18) or on SOBW, (you, males) surround! (Ps 48:13) or on SOLW, raise up (you, males)! (Is 57:14).... rather than on XOGW, which is not found in the Bible. (Isaac Fried) In Na. 2:1 we find XAGIY חָגִּי with a qamac under the X and still a dagesh in the G. In Ex. 12:14 it is TXAGUHU תְּחָגֻּהוּ also with a qamac. In Ps. 107:27 we find YAXOGU יָחוֹגּוּ in the sense of reel, written with a "full" xolam, yet still with a dagesh in the G. (Pere Porta) The A (as you write it) in XAGIY is not a qamac; it is a qamac qatan = a reduced holam. The same for TXAGUHU: it is a qamac qatan = a reduced holam. And yes, all these dageshes are to show the doubling of the consonant (one for two, as you write): all these verbs are verbs "kefulym", doubled, ayin-ayin. (Isaac Fried) > In Gen. 8:1 we find VA-YA$OK-U וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ with a patax > in the V, a dagesh in the Y, and another dagesh in the K. Here too, > the common wisdom explanation is that the dagesh in this K is to show > that it is one for two. I can not bring myself to believe that a dot > was inserted into the bosom of the Hebrew letter K just to inform us > that a second one is hiding under the first. For what? > (Pere Porta) *For what?*, you ask. Well, compare SOBW, surround! of Ps 48:13 with BO$W, they were ashamed, of Jb 6:20. Both are read paroxytone. The dagesh in SOBW reminds the reader that it comes from a verb ayin-ayin (SBB, Ez 42:19) while the lack of dagesh in BO$W tells the reader that it comes from a verb ayin-waw (BO$, Jr 6:15) and not from a verb ayin-ayin (B$$, an unexisting stem here but a possible one to exist...) Really, the dagesh is to show "one for two" rather than to hide something. Kind regards from Pere Porta (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain) > > > Isaac Fried, Boston University > > On May 17, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote: > > > isaac, > > > > >>> But there are exceptions: there is a dagesh in the G of XOGU, > > following a xolam. > > > > can you send me the reference? clearly if it comes from XGG then, > > from my point of view, > > a dagesh on the G is required! if it comes from XWG then i cannot > > explain it. > > > > >>> We see that a dagesh follows HA-, yet it is absent in HA-MDABR- > > IYM הַמְדַבְּרִים of Ex.6:27. Why? > > > > maybe the second dagesh forte is the reason why the first dagesh > > forte was removed. > > just for the argument, let's assume dagesh forte did signal > > consonant gemination. then it would be difficult > > to maintain BOTH geminations in sequence for reasons of meter, in > > HAMEDABRIM. try it! > > > > now, since the second dagesh is SHORSHI, the first dagesh is > > sacrificed. > > > > voila... > > > > nir cohen > > _______________________________________________ > 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
