I am following my path אני הולך לשיטתי and express my doubts as to your chances for finding a satisfying explanation for all these anomalies. I am afraid that your assumption that one person placed the dagesh and the schwa, in unison. and this with a deep grammatical or phonological purpose in mind, even though conforming to the common wisdom, is untenable. The dagesh, I believe, was placed there a thousand years before the schwa, by people of far greater authority than the NAQDANIYM. At the invention of the NIQUD the dagesh became obsolete and redundant, but the NAQDANIYM left it there out of respect for its antiquity. The dagesh has nothing to do with the piel as such, but is merely following the xiriq. If the NIQUD is not as expected relative to the dagesh, then this means, I think, that the NAQDANIYM deviated from an older tradition. Take, for instance, the words BAYIT, ZAYIT, TAYI$, etc.. The lack of a dagesh in them means, in my opinion, that this is not an "original" BINYAN.
Isaac Fried, Boston University On May 23, 2011, at 3:41 AM, Pere Porta wrote: > If so, is there a guide, a backgroung guiding us onto when or in which > conditions there is dagesh and when or under which conditions there > is no > dagesh? _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
