Re: אִכּוּן, a new Hebrew word
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:25 pm
Rules of grammar are invented generalizations based on certain assumptions and understandings, that may be true or not.
The question on the dagesh goes deeper than what are the rules. The cardinal, existential, question on the dagesh is when was it introduced, by who, and for what purpose. The prevailing "official" edict on the dagesh (say, "forte") is that it was introduced by the Tiberias naqdanitm ("masoretes") to double ("geminate") a consonant.
I, and possibly others, think that this is historical fiction, a fallacy bordering on a lie, perpetuated by dreamy teachers foisting it upon unsuspecting sleepy students, who anyway never "double" anything.
The dagesh, I claim, was not introduced by the (Karaite קראים?) naqdaniym, but is rather a much earlier introduction into the niqudless Hebrew script to provide needed hints for the missing, unmarked, vowels in כתיב חסר. It has nothing (nothing!) to do with the vocalization of the Hebrew word. No "gemination" and no other fabricated inventions (such as schwa "mobile", and "short" and "long" vowels).
The dagesh in the letter ב of שִבֵּר, for instance, was placed there to call attention to the xiriq under the first שׁ letter (but not needed if written שיבר in full). Not for the "gemination" of the letter ב, nor for "hardening" it. So why do we read this בּ as a "hard" B and not a "soft" V? Because we are conditioned now to do so upon seeing a dot inside it, and this, for whatever reason the dot is placed there.
The rest directly follows from this.
One more thing. Wikipedia strives to "explain" the dagesh following the ה הידיעה thus:
"The letter follows the definite article, the word "the". For example, שָׁמָיִם shamayim "heaven(s)" in Gen 1:8 is הַשָּׁמַיִם Hashshamayim "the heaven(s)" in Gen 1:1. This is because the definite article was originally a stand-alone particle הַל hal, but at some early stage in ancient Hebrew it contracted into a prefix הַ 'ha-', and the loss of the ל 'l' was compensated for by doubling the following letter."
Is there someone out there in this world who buys this story of the הַל and the "compensation" for the lost ל in doubling the following letter? Does one believe that we waste now vocal time and energy in doubling the letter ש of הַשָּׁמַיִם to maintain the blessed memory of a ל lost (peut etre oui peut etre non) to Hebrew speech some 4000 years ago? Did the naqdaniym really come along thousands of years later to save the vestige of his prehistoric relic ( להציב לו יד ושם ) with a dagesh? Or is it that the letter ש of הַשָּׁמַיִם has a dagesh since it follows a patax?
Isaac Fried, Boston University
The question on the dagesh goes deeper than what are the rules. The cardinal, existential, question on the dagesh is when was it introduced, by who, and for what purpose. The prevailing "official" edict on the dagesh (say, "forte") is that it was introduced by the Tiberias naqdanitm ("masoretes") to double ("geminate") a consonant.
I, and possibly others, think that this is historical fiction, a fallacy bordering on a lie, perpetuated by dreamy teachers foisting it upon unsuspecting sleepy students, who anyway never "double" anything.
The dagesh, I claim, was not introduced by the (Karaite קראים?) naqdaniym, but is rather a much earlier introduction into the niqudless Hebrew script to provide needed hints for the missing, unmarked, vowels in כתיב חסר. It has nothing (nothing!) to do with the vocalization of the Hebrew word. No "gemination" and no other fabricated inventions (such as schwa "mobile", and "short" and "long" vowels).
The dagesh in the letter ב of שִבֵּר, for instance, was placed there to call attention to the xiriq under the first שׁ letter (but not needed if written שיבר in full). Not for the "gemination" of the letter ב, nor for "hardening" it. So why do we read this בּ as a "hard" B and not a "soft" V? Because we are conditioned now to do so upon seeing a dot inside it, and this, for whatever reason the dot is placed there.
The rest directly follows from this.
One more thing. Wikipedia strives to "explain" the dagesh following the ה הידיעה thus:
"The letter follows the definite article, the word "the". For example, שָׁמָיִם shamayim "heaven(s)" in Gen 1:8 is הַשָּׁמַיִם Hashshamayim "the heaven(s)" in Gen 1:1. This is because the definite article was originally a stand-alone particle הַל hal, but at some early stage in ancient Hebrew it contracted into a prefix הַ 'ha-', and the loss of the ל 'l' was compensated for by doubling the following letter."
Is there someone out there in this world who buys this story of the הַל and the "compensation" for the lost ל in doubling the following letter? Does one believe that we waste now vocal time and energy in doubling the letter ש of הַשָּׁמַיִם to maintain the blessed memory of a ל lost (peut etre oui peut etre non) to Hebrew speech some 4000 years ago? Did the naqdaniym really come along thousands of years later to save the vestige of his prehistoric relic ( להציב לו יד ושם ) with a dagesh? Or is it that the letter ש of הַשָּׁמַיִם has a dagesh since it follows a patax?
Isaac Fried, Boston University