If I understand you correctly you are claiming that:
1. The Babylonian NIYQUD has an external sign (not an internal dot)
for the "dagesh hazak".
2. The dot inside the letter was introduced by the NAKDANIYM (the
"masoretes" of Tiberias), to denote, in the situation of a "dagesh
hazak", the "gemination" of the consonant.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Petr Tomasek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:36:44AM -0400, Isaac Fried wrote:
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
This is nonsense: In both the Babylonian and Palestinian punctuation
systems dagesh (and raphe) signs are present which look completelly
different to the Tiberian signs. I.e. the dot in the letter can by
no mean be some "ancient" or "pre-masoretic" sign.
Petr Tomasek
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
