Plene writing and a missing dagesh, Gen. 31:12

[Isaac Fried]

I subscribe to the opinion that the dagesh is an ancient pre-niqud marking introduced as a reading prop to hint the sounds A I U, or the latter patax, xiriq, and qubutz. It is superfluous in plene writing, where the waw and the yod performs the same function. I am also in concordance with the opinion that the dagesh has, otherwise, no vocal function such as "doubling" the consonant marked with it. For instance, כִּנּוֹר KINOR has a dagesh in the letter N following a xiriq (a dot in an initial letter has a different function), but the plene כִּישוֹר comes with an empty $in.
So, having recently read Gen. 31:12
הָעַתֻּדִים הָעֹלִים עַל הַצֹּאן עֲקֻדִּים נְקֻדִּים וּבְרֻדִּים
I was intrigued by the lack of dagesh in the letter D of HA-ATUD-IYM. I looked the word up in other places and found it written in full, thus: עַתּוּדִים as in Num. 7:17. Apparently the missing waw after the letter T of HA-ATUD-IYM of Gen. 31:12 is a scribal oversight, and may be safely reinstated.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Another example is provided us by the עוּגָב UGAB, 'harp', of Gen. 4:21, Ps. 150:4, Job 21:12, and the עֻגָב of of Job 30:31, that is also bereft of an internal dot in the letter G, in spite of the fact that it is next to a qubutz.

Other examples?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

A common dagesh ("forte") is the one appearing following the WA- of the wayqtl form (I am writing it with a single yod as in the Hebrew --- the "doubling" of the letter in the presence of a dagesh being in my opinion but a חלום באספמיא a day dream.) For instance the WA-YI-QRA
וַיִּקְרָא = בא - היא - קרא
of Gen. 1:5

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[ducky]

There is no relevance to the difference between Hiriq with Y and Hiriq without Y.
And there is no relevance to the difference between Qubuts and Shuruq.

These two (the Hiriq cases) only represent the sound "i", and the vowel is humbled by the spelling.
If a word was written in a "short style", then the Masoretic people voweled it Hiriq or Qubuts.
and if the word was written in a "long style", then the Masoretic people voweled it with Hiriq (+ the written Y) or Shuruq.

And so, the Dagesh is put on the word according to the form that it belongs to, and not according to the specific spelling of the word in the text