B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Come to think of it, "innovative" has two n's, but we don't pronounce it with two n's. Should we then argue that "inovative" is a perfectly fine spelling since we stopped pronouncing doubled consonants in English generations ago? Obviously not.

The dagesh represents doubled consonants — and we see this is in other Semitic languages, too, with their different marking methods.

In Arabic, for example, there is a marked difference between دَرَسَ darasa "he studied" and دَرَّسَ darrasa "he taught." It is the distinction that we see in Hebrew between לָמַד lāmaḏ and לִמֵּד limmēḏ. You can see a simple introduction video to Arabic shadda here, if you're interested in hearing the difference between a letter that's doubled and a letter that is not doubled.

Begedkefet letters that are marked as geminate always take the hard form, so דִּבֵּר represents *דִּבְּבֵּר dibbēr. We cannot double the soft forms, since the dagesh automatically makes them hard, so we cannot have *דִּבְבֵר represented with dagesh.

Again, although Hebrew is not pronounced with gemination today, that is where the dagesh comes from and what it represents. It is a common feature of ALL Semitic languages, and Hebrew is not exempt from this phenomenon, despite your insistence to the contrary.

Jason says

In unaccented syllables, closed syllables have short vowels and open syllables have long vowels. That's the rule.

Jason, I am sorry, but it is not clear to me where you got this "rule". Did you get it from some Hebrew "grammar" book? Do you (you!) ever "shorten" and "lengthen" vowels while speaking Hebrew? I have never done it, nor did I ever hear any other Hebrew speaker "shorten" and "lengthen" vowels.

In the case of כִּנּוֹר, the doubled nun represents the fact that we have two syllables here: kin- that is unaccented and closed, and -nur that is accented and closed.

Jason, is this really how you speak Hebrew in Tel Aviv calling כִּנּוֹר a KIN-NOR? I don't think so.

The unaccented syllable must have a short vowel, thus short chirik

There are no "short vowels" in Hebrew, and certainly no "short" xiriq.

such as in technically impossible דִּיבֵּר—and this innovative violation was initiated in post-biblical Hebrew, even appearing in many copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls).

What is "technically impossible" in דיבר?

the doubling of the consonants with dagesh that necessitates a short vowel before it – because the syllable must necessarily be closed.

"must necessarily be closed."? wherefrom do you get this "necessity"$

Who in the world taught you that the י in אָכִיל means "she"? That's just weird and false.

The theִי in אָכִיל does not mean "she", but היא = הוּא. It means that היא, "it", is eatable = eat-able.

The dagesh represents doubled consonants

I am of the firm opinion that it is not so. The dagesh, in my opinion, has no bearing whatsoever on the vocalization of Hebrew words, except for BKP, where it is nothing but an unintended byproduct, and this in spite of what you so avidly read in your Hebrew "grammar" books.

It is the distinction that we see in Hebrew between לָמַד lāmaḏ and לִמֵּד limmēḏ.

The "distinction" is but an ab nihilo invention, a figment of an imagination excited by Hebrew "grammar" books.

It is a common feature of ALL Semitic languages, and Hebrew is not exempt from this phenomenon, despite your insistence to the contrary.

Unfortunately the only Semitic language I know is Hebrew. The dagesh is in my opinion a pre-niqud marking introduced to call the reader's attention to a vowel. It has nothing to do with any any sound altering such as "doubling" of consonants.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Why not just admit that you aren't interested in hearing anything that contradicts your pet theory? No one in the world teaches Hebrew in the way that you think it should be taught and understood, yet you think that you've figured it all out and that everyone else is wrong. You cannot even tolerate in your mind the possibility that you have been spreading nonsense for the past decade and more. In order to think in different ways, you need to be able to hypothetically suppose that the case being proposed could be true and trying to understand how it works. Instead, you reject it a priori and hold tight to your misinformation. That isn't the path towards right thinking.

the root אכן reminds us of the root עגן, 'stay put', of Ruth 1:13
הֲלָהֵן תֵּעָגֵנָה לְבִלְתִּי הֱיוֹת לְאִישׁ
NIV: "Would you remain unmarried for them"
KJV: "would ye stay for them from having husbands"
From this root we have the post-biblical word עֲגוּנָה = עג-הוּא-נ-היא AGUNAH, a deserted woman, but not yet officially divorced, a woman in limbo', her husband is gone, but she is stuck in a marriage and can not remarry yet.
Also עוֹגֶן, 'anchor', possibly related, via Greek, to "angle" and "ankle". Then, מַעֲגָן = מה-עגן, 'marina, dock', a מקום חניה for boats.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

How to explain the דגש in the letter ב of such words as אֶצְבַּע חֶשְבּוֹן אֶשְׁכּוֹל?
I suspect that the segol niqud mark, a tsere with a xiriq under it, indicates that there was possibly a parallel tradition of reading them as אִצְבַּע חִשְבּוֹן אִשְׁכּוֹל. To accommodate the different prevailing reading traditions the naqdaniym (the "masoretes") introduced the compromise three dots mark of segol ( אשכוֹל .) The dagesh, I surmise, was in the letter ב from much before and they have left it there.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac, if you really wanted to learn these things, you could have done so long ago and easily. These are matters treated in the beginning of every Hebrew grammar. I will recommend that you read the beginning of either Weingreen or Gesenius, which you can find online. It's clear to everyone that begedkefet letters are hard when they do not follow a vowel. Since silent sheva (שווא נח) represents the lack of a vowel, a begedkefet letter that follows it will be hard. You should know that.

Jason says

It's clear to everyone that begedkefet letters are hard when they do not follow a vowel

Upon seeing a dagesh we "harden" the BKP letters, not seeing a dagesh we sound them "soft", and this, incidentally and independently of the reason for the dagesh being there. It does not matter what brought the dagesh into the letter: it is there we "harden", it is not there we "soften". The hardening and softening of BKF is an unintended (unintended!) byproduct of the dagesh.

Since silent sheva (שווא נח) represents the lack of a vowel.

Every schwa represents the lack of a vowel, there is no schwa "mobile" שווא נע in Hebrew.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

How can someone study a topic for so long and be so off–base about it?

Look at this.
There is a famous and beautiful Shabat-night פִּיוּט, hymen, poem, piece of poetry, called לכה דודי, 'go my beloved', by
שלמה הלוי אלקבץ Shlomo Halevi Alkabetz, Born: 1500, Thessaloniki, Greece. Died: 1576, Safed, Israel
https://web.nli.org.il/sites/nlis/he/so ... ?SongID=55
universally sang during the Shabat evening service. It starts with
לְכָה דוֹדִי לִקְרַאת כַּלָּה פְּנֵי שַׁבָּת נְקַבְּלָה
and ends with
בֹּאִי בְּשָׁלוֹם עֲטֶרֶת בַּעֲלָהּ גַּם בְּשִׂמְחָה בְּרִנָּה וּבְצָהֳלָה
תּוֹךְ אֱמוּנֵי עַם סְגֻלָּה בּוֹאִי כַלָּה בּוֹאִי כַלָּה
בּוֹאִי כַלָּה שַׁבָּת מַלְכְּתָא
In the first line we find כַּלָּה, 'bride', with a dot in first כ letter (and also a dot in the second ל letter, following a patax) and we sing it as KALAH with a hard K. But, then, suddenly (or possibly not so suddenly, but by the efforts of an enterprising hyper-active Hebrew "grammarian" strictly and faithfully following the "rules") in the last two lines it is כַלָּה without a dagesh in the opening כ letter.
Here, to my utter dismay, the entire congregation, one-heartedly, whole-heartedly, dutifully, joyfully and melodically, by a beautiful traditional tune, exclaim
בּוֹאִי חַלָּה בּוֹאִי חַלָּה בּוֹאִי חַלָּה שַׁבָּת מַלְכְּתָא
as though they are welcoming a חַלָּה, a chalah, a sweet loaf of bread (which they are also possibly awaiting).
Can't some editor of the prayer book summon courage and put an end to this charade by placing a dot in every כַּלָּה?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

In Joel 2:16 we find
יֵצֵא חָתָן מֵחֶדְרוֹ וְכַלָּה מֵחֻפָּתָהּ
with וְכַלָּה not having a dagesh in the כ, since it moved from first to second place in the word. I would unhesitatingly read it, even in public, as וְכַּלָּה VE-KALAH with a hard כ, instead of וְחַלָּה.
In Isaiah 61:10 we find
כֶּחָתָן יְכַהֵן פְּאֵר וְכַכַּלָּה תַּעְדֶּה כֵלֶיהָ
Here, in וְכַכַּלָּה the second כ is dgusha as it comes after a patax.
I would unhesitatingly read, even in public: יְכַּהֵן, וְכַּכַּלָּה, כֵּלֶיהָ

Isaac Fried, Boston University