1. You are right that all these jussive forms: GOLU גֹּלּוּ SOBU סֹבּוּ SOLU סֹלּוּ (but what about the next PANU פַּנּוּ ?) are with an "unexpected" dagesh. Still, I cannot bring myself to believe that this dagesh is placed there (causing, incidentally, the reading B instead of V) to "remind the reader" that SOBU "comes from" SBB. Otherwise, reader will not not know what SOBU means? It is also not clear to me if the common wisdom says that the dagesh refers to a missing written B only, or if it claims that a vocal memorial, in the reading SOB-BU, is also counseled. And in Job 6:20, is BO$U actually "from" B$ or "from" B$$? And what does it matter? By the way, the new "official" common wisdom now, concerning the dagesh after HA-, is that it is not there to "remind the reader" of a missing L (as in Arabic), or a missing N (as in "Phoenician"), but rather to "preserve" the patax from smudging.
2. The qamqc "qatan" is, in my opinion, an invention (from readings in the LXX?). I have never heard CAHARAYIM, 'noon', pronounced otherwise. 3. The YAXOGU יָחוֹגּוּ 'they reeled', of Ps. 107:27 is also "from" XGG? I think that the dagesh is nothing more than an ancient diacritical marking, preceding the NIQUD by many years. I don't believe that the NAQDANIYM (probably Karaites) would have dared changing the form of a Hebrew letter in the Hebrew sacred book by putting a dot inside (inside!) it. The NAQDANIYM built their NIKUD around an already existing system of dgeshiym, yet it is conceivable that occasionally their reading slightly deviated from another, earlier, MASORAH. Isaac Fried, Boston University On May 18, 2011, at 12:44 AM, Pere Porta wrote: > > You should better write, Isaac, on GOLW, roll away (you, males)! > (Js 10:18) or on SOBW, (you, males) surround! (Ps 48:13) or on > SOLW, raise up (you, males)! (Is 57:14).... rather than on XOGW, > which is not found in the Bible. > > > The A (as you write it) in XAGIY is not a qamac; it is a qamac > qatan = a reduced holam. > The same for TXAGUHU: it is a qamac qatan = a reduced holam. > > > And yes, all these dageshes are to show the doubling of the > consonant (one for two, as you write): all these verbs are verbs > "kefulym", doubled, ayin-ayin. > > > For what?, you ask. > Well, compare SOBW, surround! of Ps 48:13 with BO$W, they were > ashamed, of Jb 6:20. Both are read paroxytone. > The dagesh in SOBW reminds the reader that it comes from a verb > ayin-ayin (SBB, Ez 42:19) while the lack of dagesh in BO$W tells > the reader that it comes from a verb ayin-waw (BO$, Jr 6:15) and > not from a verb ayin-ayin (B$$, an unexisting stem here but a > possible one to exist...) > Really, the dagesh is to show "one for two" rather than to hide > something. > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
