ששון מרגליות
In my opinion the "dagesh hazak" is a grammatical fiction. There is
no, and there never was, "gemination" in Hebrew. I don't, even
remotely believe that the NAKDANIYM (the "masoretes") would dare
place a dot in the interior of a Hebrew letter, and this, to merely
mark a make-believe "gemination".
I think that the dot in the letter is an ancient, pre-niqud, sign to
mark the vowels patakh, qubutz, khiriq. It is not needed in plene
spelling. Indeed, we have the verbal pa'ul form KTUBOT כְּתוּבוֹת
'are written', spelled in Hebrew with a full U, a shuruk, following
the first letter T, and indeed, with no dagesh in the letter B. On
the other hand, כְּתֻבָּה KTUBAH, 'written marriage contract',
plural: כְּתֻבּוֹת is written XASER, with a qubutz, and hence the
"dagesh hazak" in the letter B.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Jun 26, 2013, at 6:43 AM, Sasson Margaliot wrote:
1) Was doubling of consonants not present in Biblical Hebrew and/or
Tiberian Hebrew?
2) What English term do you prefer for consonants with "Dagesh hazak"?
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Five Rules for root-identification
>
> Isaac Fried wrote:
> It is "geminated" only if you "geminate" it.
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
>> On Jun 25, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Sasson Margaliot wrote:
>> Not surprisingly, the root-final consonant is geminated in
K.TuB.BoT
>>
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
