1. Evidently the dagesh comes systematically after a patax, a xiriq
or a qubuc: the dagesh "forte" directly, and the dagesh "lene"
shifted (why there is no dagesh in "gutturals" I am not sure.) The
question is, then, what causes what
מה הסיבה ומה המסובב
Is the dagesh part of the niqud, or does the dagesh engender the
niqud. I refuse the possibility that the dagesh marks "gemination".
There is no "doubling" now, and there is no reason for it to have
ever existed before. For what? Moreover, since this purported
"gemination" is systematic, it should not require any special
marking, certainly not an invasive and intrusive internal dot.
2. Questions about niqud may be difficult to answer as we have no
clear understanding of the logical underpinning of the whole
enterprise. What is the purpose of having a qamatz in דָּג 'fish,
fished', but a patax in דַּג 'fish of'. Is it phonetical or is it
grammatical?
3. The niqud is man-made, and in the some two hundred years from its
inception to the earliest "masoretic" texts, opinionated (they exist
even today) or careless scribes could have caused some slips in the
original niqud.
4. In any event, the Eretz Israel Torah reading practice makes no
distinction whatsoever between the patax, the qamatz and the
xatapiym, making them all A, with the sense of the text left immutable.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Aug 8, 2013, at 12:15 AM, AMK Judaica wrote:
Isaac:
Thank you for responding.
1) Is there any evidence for what you write about the dagesh?
2) Regardless, I don't see how that explains the different pointing
of שבת in the two verses.
Thank you,
Ari
**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.
CC: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Shabbat in construct state?
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 00:08:11 -0400
To: [email protected]
I will tell you what I think about the patax (Wikipedia says about
the qamatz
that it is, or used to be, a
תנועה אחורית חצי-פתוחה מעוגלת
but this we can safely ignore as a mere finger-sucked fable), and
this is, as
far as I can go.
1. The יסוד מוסד of the Hebrew niyqud is that the dagesh was
there first as
the sole reading cue for a patax, a xiriq, or a qubuc,
(זַנְבוֹת is an override)
and that the NAQDANIYM based their punctuation on this dagesh. The
dagesh
has nothing to do, in my opinion, not with "gemination" and not
with the "opening"
and "closing" of syllables. Even the hardening of BGDKPT with a
dagesh, is,
in my opinion, merely incidental.
2. Upon seeing the dot in the word שבּת in Num. 28:10, the
NAQDANIYM put
a patax under the letter ש $in. Then they saw the next word
בּשבּתּו
with two interior dgeshim (the initial dagesh is, methinks, but a
vestige of a
dot marking the beginning of the word), which prompted them to
place two
patax marks, one under the letter ש $in, and one under the letter
ב bet,
to read olAt $AbAt b$AbAto.
3. In Is. 66:23 the NAQDANIYM saw the dagesh in the letter ת of
להשתּחות
and this directed them to place a xiriq under the letter ה he.
4. A patax/qamatc interchange may change the meaning, for instance,
דַּג זהב DAG ZAHAB, 'gold fish', versus דָּג זהב 'he
fished gold'. But דַּגְתִּי 'I fished',
with a patax under the letter ד dalet due to a dagesh in the
letter ת tav.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Aug 7, 2013, at 8:37 AM, AMK Judaica wrote:
The following examples of שבת have a patah under the bet rather
than the expected kamatz:
2. Numbers: 28:10
עֹלַ֥ת שַׁבַּ֖ת בְּשַׁבַּתּ֑וֹ עַל-
עֹלַ֥ת הַתָּמִ֖יד וְנִסְכָּֽהּ׃ פ
4. Chronicles I: 9:32
וּמִן-בְּנֵ֧י הַקֳּהָתִ֛י מִן-
אֲחֵיהֶ֖ם עַל-לֶ֣חֶם
הַֽמַּעֲרָ֑כֶת לְהָכִ֖ין שַׁבַּ֥ת
שַׁבָּֽת׃
Some references list these occurrences under a construct rubric,
which explains the patah. But why is there a construct state here?
And regarding the first example, why does the identical phrase
2. Isaiah: 66:23
וְהָיָ֗ה מִֽדֵּי-חֹ֙דֶשׁ֙
בְּחָדְשׁ֔וֹ וּמִדֵּ֥י שַׁבָּ֖ת
בְּשַׁבַּתּ֑וֹ יָב֧וֹא כָל-בָּשָׂ֛ר
לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹ֥ת לְפָנַ֖י אָמַ֥ר ה'׃
have a kamatz?
Thank you,
Ari
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
