Where is the dot?

[ducky]

Hello Jason and thanks.

About the first part of your comment.
Notice that these Piel forms with Patah' come mostly when they are linked to the next word.

You gave two examples:
ברך את אברהם
שלם-לי

Both of them are linked to the next word and so they get Patah.

But check, for example, Psalms 10:3 - in this case, it is not connected, and therefore it tends to be with "e" sound.


A note:
The "e" sound for the Piel is also an evolution of "i" or "a".
(restoring this form in an exact way is complicated, and I can send you two (or more) articles about it if you'd like (in Hebrew)).

But this just a comment, before anyone would talk abut this vowel "e", that we use for this explanation.
Because we deal with the classic way of Hebrew as is seen in the MT.

[Jason Hare]

About the first part of your comment.
Notice that these Piel forms with Patah' come mostly when they are linked to the next word.

You gave two examples:
ברך את אברהם
שלם-לי

Both of them are linked to the next word and so they get Patah.

I think you'll find in language that every word is somehow linked to what comes before it and what follows it. In this case, בֵּרֵךְ is linked to יַהְוֶה in that יַהְוֶה is its subject, and it is linked to אַבְרָהָם in that אַבְרָהָם is its object. I don't see how this would influence the pronunciation of the word. It's just the case that the qiṭṭal [קִטַּל] pattern is more common than qiṭṭēl [קִטֵּל].

This doesn't mean that the latter doesn't occur (as you pointed out in Ps 10:3 with הִלֵּל, בֵּרֵךְ and נִאֵץ), but the tendency in the Bible is for patach. I did a search of all instances of the piel ברך, and this is what I found:

Gen. 24:1 – וְאַבְרָהָ֣ם זָקֵ֔ן בָּ֖א בַּיָּמִ֑ים וַֽיהוָ֛ה בֵּרַ֥ךְ אֶת־אַבְרָהָ֖ם בַּכֹּֽל׃
Gen. 24:35 – וַיהוָ֞ה בֵּרַ֧ךְ אֶת־אֲדֹנִ֛י מְאֹ֖ד וַיִּגְדָּ֑ל וַיִּתֶּן־ל֞וֹ צֹ֤אן וּבָקָר֙ וְכֶ֣סֶף וְזָהָ֔ב וַעֲבָדִם֙ וּשְׁפָחֹ֔ת וּגְמַלִּ֖ים וַחֲמֹרִֽים׃
Gen. 28:6 – וַיַּ֣רְא עֵשָׂ֗ו כִּֽי־בֵרַ֣ךְ יִצְחָק֘ אֶֽת־יַעֲקֹב֒ וְשִׁלַּ֤ח אֹתוֹ֙ פַּדֶּ֣נָֽה אֲרָ֔ם לָקַֽחַת־ל֥וֹ מִשָּׁ֖ם אִשָּׁ֑ה בְּבָרֲכ֣וֹ אֹת֔וֹ וַיְצַ֤ו עָלָיו֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לֹֽא־תִקַּ֥ח אִשָּׁ֖ה מִבְּנ֥וֹת כְּנָֽעַן׃
Exod. 20:11 – כִּ֣י שֵֽׁשֶׁת־יָמִיםָ עָשָׂ֙ה יְהוָ֜ה אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֣יִם וְאֶת־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֶת־הַיָּם֙ וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֔ם וַיָּ֖נַח בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֑י עַל־כֵּ֗ן בֵּרַ֧ךְ יְהוָ֛ה אֶת־י֥וֹם הַשַּׁבָּ֖ת וַֽיְקַדְּשֵֽׁהוּ׃
Num. 23:20 – הִנֵּ֥ה בָרֵ֖ךְ לָקָ֑חְתִּי וּבֵרֵ֖ךְ וְלֹ֥א אֲשִׁיבֶֽנָּה׃
Deut. 33:1 – וְזֹ֣את הַבְּרָכָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֙ר בֵּרַ֥ךְ מֹשֶׁ֛ה אִ֥ישׁ הָאֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל לִפְנֵ֖י מוֹתֽוֹ׃
2 Sam. 6:12 – וַיֻּגַּ֗ד לַמֶּ֣לֶךְ דָּוִד֘ לֵאמֹר֒ בֵּרַ֣ךְ יְהוָ֗ה אֶת־בֵּ֙ית עֹבֵ֤ד אֱדֹם֙ וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־ל֔וֹ בַּעֲב֖וּר אֲר֣וֹן הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ דָּוִ֗ד וַיַּעַלָ אֶת־אֲר֙וֹן הָאֱלֹהִ֜ים מִבֵּ֙ית עֹבֵ֥ד אֱדֹ֛ם עִ֥יר דָּוִ֖ד בְּשִׂמְחָֽה׃
1 Ki. 21:13 – וַ֠יָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵ֙י הָאֲנָשִׁ֥ים בְּנֵֽי־בְלִיַּעַל֘ וַיֵּשְׁב֣וּ נֶגְדּוֹ֒ וַיְעִדֻהוּ֩ אַנְשֵׁ֙י הַבְּלִיַּ֜עַל אֶת־נָב֗וֹת נֶ֤גֶד הָעָם֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר בֵּרַ֥ךְ נָב֛וֹת אֱלֹהִ֖ים וָמֶ֑לֶךְ וַיֹּצִאֻ֙הוּ֙ מִח֣וּץ לָעִ֔יר וַיִּסְקְלֻ֥הוּ בָאֲבָנִ֖ים וַיָּמֹֽת׃
2 Chr. 31:10 – וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלָ֗יו עֲזַרְיָ֧הוּ הַכֹּהֵ֛ן הָרֹ֖אשׁ לְבֵ֣ית צָד֑וֹק וַ֠יֹּאמֶר מֵהָחֵ֙ל הַתְּרוּמָ֜ה לָבִ֣יא בֵית־יְהוָ֗ה אָכ֙וֹל וְשָׂב֤וֹעַ וְהוֹתֵר֙ עַד־לָר֔וֹב כִּ֤י יְהוָה֙ בֵּרַ֣ךְ אֶת־עַמּ֔וֹ וְהַנּוֹתָ֖ר אֶת־הֶהָמ֥וֹן הַזֶּֽה׃
Job 42:12 – וַֽיהוָ֗ה בֵּרַ֛ךְ אֶת־אַחֲרִ֥ית אִיּ֖וֹב מֵרֵאשִׁת֑וֹ וַֽיְהִי־ל֡וֹ אַרְבָּעָהָ עָשָׂ֙ר אֶ֜לֶף צֹ֗אן וְשֵׁ֤שֶׁת אֲלָפִים֙ גְּמַלִּ֔ים וְאֶֽלֶף־צֶ֥מֶד בָּקָ֖ר וְאֶ֥לֶף אֲתוֹנֽוֹת׃
Ps. 10:3 – כִּֽי־הִלֵּ֣ל רָ֭שָׁע עַל־תַּאֲוַ֣ת נַפְשׁ֑וֹ וּבֹצֵ֥עַ בֵּ֜רֵ֗ךְ נִאֵ֥ץ׀֘ יְהוָֽה׃
Ps. 147:13 – כִּֽי־חִ֭זַּק בְּרִיחֵ֣י שְׁעָרָ֑יִךְ בֵּרַ֖ךְ בָּנַ֣יִךְ בְּקִרְבֵּֽךְ׃
Isa. 61:9 – וְנוֹדַ֤ע בַּגּוֹיִם֙ זַרְעָ֔ם וְצֶאֱצָאֵיהֶ֖ם בְּת֣וֹךְ הָעַמִּ֑ים כָּל־רֹֽאֵיהֶם֙ יַכִּיר֔וּם כִּ֛י הֵ֥ם זֶ֖רַע בֵּרַ֥ךְ יְהוָֽה׃

In these 13 instances of the 3ms piel of ב.ר.כ, only two are pointed with tsere (in blue). The other 11 are pointed with patach (in red), and I don't think being "linked to the follow word" is a good explanation of what's going on here. You will not find a syntactic relationship different in the berech verses that exists differently in the berach verses.

But check, for example, Psalms 10:3 - in this case, it is not connected, and therefore it tends to be with "e" sound.

You will forgive me for thinking that this is an ad hoc explanation, and the case of Ps. 10:3 is obviously in the minority. It needs a better explanation than this.

[ducky]

Hello Jason,

I'll say it in other words.
Some roots act in two ways when they are in the Piel form:
"e" and "a".

The "a" would come mostly when this verb is linked to the next word.
And that is part of the (not perfect) pattern of the Philippi's law.
Now, it is not always perfect, and that is probably because of analogies.

And in pausal parts, the tendency is to be with an "e" (since then, the Philippi's law is not relevant).

Check the verses you quoted, and see that the two cases of when the root is with "e", are cases of which their cantillation marks are "pausing" and break the link between the verb and the next word.
While on the other verses, the cantillation marks do connect the verb to the next word.


The two "exceptions" (or not exceptions at all) are:
The verse in Job has a Tevir, and in this case, it is probably not strong enough to break the link between the words since, as far as I can tell, it acts as a low pausing servant mark to a powerful one that comes next. (but I'm not sure this is the reason, but there is one).

And the verse in Psalm is also a mark that doesn't come to break the link. (once again, I am not sure, but I think so).

Anyway, you can see the pattern in the verses you quoted yourself - so this is what your own eyes see.

[Jason Hare]

I see what you mean. I think you said it differently from how you meant it.

Instead of saying that the berach variant (as an example) is linked to the word following it, you meant to say that the berech variant is marked with either pause (etnachta or sof-pasuk) or partial pause (a lower-level master accent). This is what I'm understanding from your argument, and it seems consistent.

[ducky]

Hello Jason,

Thanks for your comment. I guess that through time, I'll start to be more and more understandable.

[Jason Hare]

Hello Jason,

Thanks for your comment. I guess that through time, I'll start to be more and more understandable.

It's fine. Once I understood what you meant, I was able to make the comparison and see the merit in your argument. It just seemed kinda nebulous before you brought up the connection to taamei ha-miqra.

[Isaac Fried]

ducky writes

The שִלֵּם is a form of "qittel" (as Pi'el). This is the form. It is not just a Hebrew thing, but a Semitic thing. This form is based on being with Dagesh. The Dagesh is part of the form itself, and so there is no form of שִׁלֵם without Dagesh. This is not an invention, but part of the basic signs of this form that demands its second root letter to be doubled.

In my humble opinion the dot (the "dagesh") in the letter ל of שִׁלֵם is not a part of any coherent deliberate Hebrew, or otherwise Semitic, "form" for this act. The form "thing" in a contrivance of latter day "grammarians".
I believe the dot was placed in this letter many many years before the invention of the niqud as a hint for the xireq under the letter ש of שִׁלֵם, and was left there by the later naqdaniym. The dot "demanding the doubling" of the pregnant consonant is also, in my opinion, nothing more than a mere putative invention of latter day "grammarians" struggling to justify the presence of the dot, but lacking an ideological leeway to allow them the admission of a redundancy in the HB.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[ducky]

Hello Isaac,

The Piel form is known also from other languages.
Just one example: in the Archilolgy when they find the Akkadian scripts, this form is doubled. So you cannot say it is a "late" invention.

****
There is another type of Dagesh Forte that comes after the Hiriq - and it is to "keep" the Hiriq stable. This is probably later, but also ancient. And was probably evolved when the Mobile Sheva was "entering" the Hebrew.
And so to keep the Hiriq to not turn into a Sheva, a Dagesh comes to close the syllable.

[Isaac Fried]

ducky writes

The Piel form is known also from other languages.

The Piel (or Pial) form is a verbal form including the PP היא between the first and second radicals for the performer of the act.

Akkadian scripts

I am not listening to anything about "Akkadian".

There is another type of Dagesh Forte

There is no Dagesh "Forte" in Hebrew.

There is another type of Dagesh Forte that comes after the Hiriq - and it is to "keep" the Hiriq stable.

This is news to me, see above.

when the Mobile Sheva was "entering" the Hebrew

There is no "Mobile" Sheva in Hebrew.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[ducky]

Hello Isaac

You're an interesting man, but since our view about the language doesn't have the same basis, our discussion would be futile.

ּSo I'm stopping here.