לקח in 2 Kings 2:10

[Jason Hare]

I notice that in Gen. 41:23
וְהִנֵּה שֶׁבַע שִׁבֳּלִים צְנֻמוֹת דַּקּוֹת שְׁדֻפוֹת קָדִים
it is שְׁדֻפוֹת in כתיב חסר with a qubuts, but in Gen. 41:6
וְהִנֵּה שֶׁבַע שִׁבֳּלִים דַּקּוֹת וּשְׁדוּפֹת קָדִים
it is וּשְׁדוּפֹת in כתיב מלא with a shuruq, and hence the absence of a dagesh in the letter פ of both שְׁדֻפוֹת and וּשְׁדוּפֹת.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Because in both cases the 'u' vowel is long. In one, it is long qubuts (ū = ◌ֻ), and in the other it is shuruk (û = וּ), which is always long. Again, in unaccented syllables, if the syllable is open, the vowel is long. That's a rule.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason writes

Because in both cases the 'u' vowel is long. In one, it is long qubuts (ū = ◌ֻ), and in the other it is shuruk (û = וּ), which is always long. Again, in unaccented syllables, if the syllable is open, the vowel is long.

There is no "short" and "long" vowels in Hebrew.

That's a rule.

No. There is no such "rule".

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

There is no "short" and "long" vowels in Hebrew.

This is why you have developed a weird non-language-related idiosyncratic approach to Hebrew. You don't get to just say "there's no such thing" in the face of all Hebrew grammarians. You are not the one who declares what is and is not true of the language based solely on your own experience. You have not explained what the difference is between ◌ָ (ā) and ◌ַ (a), between ◌ֵ (ē) and ◌ֶ (e), between ◌ֹ (ō) and ◌ָ (o), etc. You think that dagesh appears randomly. Your entire methodology is based on strange conceptions that have nothing to do with language, and it has no explanatory power. Yet, you think that by fiat you can simply declare things that are as though they were not. That is not how it works. Until you've come up with a system that has half the explanatory power of the traditional grammars, you have no position from which to make this declaration. Hebrew has long vowels, as is witnessed and argued by all Hebrew grammarians. You are the odd one out here.

Hebrew has three vowel lengths: long, short, and reduced. That is part of the grammar. Your refusal to recognize or grasp this is what leads you to such divergent theories regarding the language. Go spend some time in a grammar of the language and see what you learn.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason writes

You think that dagesh appears randomly.

No, but I do think that the dagesh is not a part of the niqud system and may be safely ignored (or even removed) now, except in בכפ for which it reverts the reading from soft to hard randomly.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

Jason writes

You think that dagesh appears randomly.

No, but I do think that the dagesh is not a part of the niqud system and may be safely ignored (or even removed) now, except in בכפ for which it reverts the reading from soft to hard randomly.

Yes, "randomly." Just one more thing for which your inadequate theory cannot account.

[Isaac Fried]

Glenn writes

That is to say that the qal passive has its own fragmentary paradigm, and there is a participle that is included as part of that paradigm. On the other hand, the qal (which is generally active in theory) has a participle (קֹטֵל) that also takes a passive form (קָטוּל).

Recall that Hebrew has now also a corresponding קָטִיל as in שָבִיר = שב-היא-ר (with the internal היא standing for the thing referred to as having the property שבר), 'fragile, breakable'.
Also שָבְרִיר = שבר-היא-ר, 'fraction, fragment'. And then שָבְרִירִי = שבריר-היא, 'frail, brittle, fragile'. Then שָבְרִירִית = שברירי-את for female.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

Recall that Hebrew has now also a corresponding קָטִיל as in שָבִיר = שב-היא-ר (with the internal היא standing for the thing referred to as having the property שבר), 'fragile, breakable'.
Also שָבְרִיר = שבר-היא-ר, 'fraction, fragment'. And then שָבְרִירִי = שבריר-היא, 'frail, brittle, fragile'. Then שָבְרִירִית = שברירי-את for female.

It might seem random to you, but because the shav- syllable is closed and unaccented, it must have a short vowel. The word is שַׁבְרִיר šaḇrîr with pataḥ in all of its forms. If it had qamats, that would represent a short vowel, and it would be *šoḇrîr (shovrir). Check any dictionary. It isn't random. It is pataḥ, and it is pataḥ on purpose. Qamats will not work in that syllable.

[Isaac Fried]

We have כְּבִיר kvir in 1Sam. 19:13 with a dageshless ב, and we have כַּבִּיר kabir in Isaiah 16:14 with a ב dgusha.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Isaac Fried]

Ah, and there is also שַבְרִירִיוּת = שברירי-הוּא-את, 'fragility,
frailty', in which the closing הוּא-את stands as the English "it" for the attribute.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com