What do you say to וַיְמַלְאוּם עָפָר WA-Y-MAL-UM APAR of Gen. 21:15, or to מִלְאוּ MIL-U of Num. 32:11? And, why is there no dagesh in the B of קִרְבוּ QIRBU of Ex. 16:9, but there is a dagesh in the B of קִרְבּוֹ QIRBO of Ex. 12:9?
Isaac Fried, Boston University On May 13, 2012, at 1:40 AM, Pere Porta wrote: > I do not understand, Isaac, why you do not take into account the > classical distinction between the dagesh forte and the dagesh lene. > You say in your post of word סִתְּמוּם SITMWM (Gn 26:15) > and you try to get the reason for the dagesh into the T... without > any reference to the Pi'el form of this word... > The T has dagesh because this is a Pi'el form, not because there is > a hirix before it... > Compare this word with תִּפְשוּם TIP&WM (1K 20:18): its > pattern is exactly the same as that of SITMWM, the dagesh in the > second root consonant excepted... that being so not because of the > hirix but because in 1K 20:18 we have a Qal form (Imperative: seize > them!) while in Gn 26:15 we have a Pi'el form (Past: they stopped > them up). > > Regards from > > Pere Porta > (Barcelona, Catalonia, Northeastern Spain) > 2012/5/13 Isaac Fried <[email protected]> > Well, I think it is so The dagesh, which I believe to be a pre NIKUD > reading hinter, is not needed in plene writing. Indeed, SIYM is > routinely written in full, and consequently with no dagesh, as the > יְשִׂימָם YSIYMAM of Deut. 7:15. But in 2Ki 13:7 it is > וַיְשִׂמֵם WAYSIMEM, and still with no dagesh. This means, I > think, that at the time the dgeshim were introduced into the biblical > text the word was written plene with a Y, which was lost later on. > > A similar fate befell the letter W of UGAB of Ps. 150:4, and hence > the lack of a dagesh in the letter B following a qubuc. > > I think that there were two systems of dgeshim that got mixed > together in our present text. In one system, a dot was placed after a > qubuc, a patax or a xiriq even in a letter not followed by a vowel, > for example, סִתְּמוּם SITMUM of Gen. 26:15 and > וַיְסַתְּמוּם WAYSATMUM of Gen. 26:18. In the other > system, a dagesh is not placed in a letter marked now by a schwa, for > instance, וַאֲמֻשְׁךָ WA-AMU$KA of Gen. 27:21. > > Isaac Fried, Boston University > > On May 10, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Isaac Fried wrote: > > > Why there is no dot in the first letter M of וַיְשִׂמֵם > > WAYSIMEM I don't know. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
