Lack of dagesh after a formative letter

[Isaac Fried]

A counter-example is found in Gen. 18:15
וַתְּכַחֵשׁ שָׂרָה
Here a dagesh is placed in the letter ת T of וַתְּכַחֵשׁ, as expected, following a patax under the attached waw, and there is no need for a second dagesh in in the letter כ K.

In 1Kings 1:21
וְהָיָה כִּשְׁכַב אֲדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ עִם אֲבֹתָיו
a dagesh is missing in the second כ K of כִּשְׁכַב, expected on account of the xireq in the first, attached, כ K. Possibly, when the dgeshiym were introduced, methinks, well before the niqud, the attached כ K was read differently.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

A counter-example is found in Gen. 18:15
וַתְּכַחֵשׁ שָׂרָה
Here a dagesh is placed in the letter ת T of וַתְּכַחֵשׁ, as expected, following a patax under the attached waw, and there is no need for a second dagesh in in the letter כ K.

The pointing here tells us the Tiberians pronounced the second syllable with a vocal schwa: ˈwɐt/tə/xɐ/ˈχeeʂ. So the environment of the kaph is vowels on either side. One would expect a fricative here, not a stop. I would be surprised if it had been point with a dagesh.

In 1Kings 1:21
וְהָיָה כִּשְׁכַב אֲדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ עִם אֲבֹתָיו
a dagesh is missing in the second כ K of כִּשְׁכַב, expected on account of the xireq in the first, attached, כ K. Possibly, when the dgeshiym were introduced, methinks, well before the niqud, the attached כ K was read differently.

There is no "missing" dagesh. The dagesh in the KI is there because Tiberians treat begadkefat letters as plosives when they begin a word. The only exception being when a word beginning with a begadkefat is coupled with a preceding word in close association, such as a genitive construct, and that preceding word ends with a vowel.

NOTE: This kind of linguistic evidence demonstrates that the Masoretic pronunciation was natural, and not contrived.

[Isaac Fried]

1. As I see it there is no such thing in Hebrew as a "vocal schwa". When reading biblical texts in public I read all schwas (except in non-radical letters, but this is another story) as a stop, and it sounds all very good and crisp.

2. As I see it THE DAGESH IS NOT A PART OF THE NIYQUD AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE READING OF THE HEBREW WORD. The dagesh is an ancient, pre-niyqud, cue for a vowel. The association of the dagesh with "gemination", and with the change in the reading of the BKP letters are latter inventions and fictions. The dagesh in the first letter is a remnant of a dot placed to mark the first letter.

The dagesh is now, after the invention of the niqud, mostly redundant (who needs the dagesh in the M of הַמֶּלֶךְ ?) but is being religiously applied in secular print even in present-day Hebrew out of reverence for all sorts of foggy traditions fostered by the pious Hebrew "Academy" in Jerusalem, who believes wholeheartedly that the schwa "mobile", as well as the dagesh "forte", were handed down to Moses on mount Sinai, and are therefore sacred.

I don't think that the NAQDANIYM, even being Karaites and not under Rabbinical influence and authority, would have dared place a dot INSIDE the holy text. This was done earlier by a much higher authority.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

In Gen. 19:14 we encounter this interesting example of a dot retained in the first letter
קוּמוּ צְ ּאוּ
possibly to guard against the hasty reading קוּם וּצאוּ.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

In Gen. 19:19 we also encounter
וָמַתִּי 'and I die'. The attached waw is marked by a qametz and hence the following letter מ M is left dageshless. But, this M is marked by a patax, and hence the dot in the following letter ת T.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

In Gen. 24:5
אוּלַי לֹא תֹאבֶה הָאִשָּׁה לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרַי אֶל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת
KJV: "Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land"
the word אוּלַי is written completed with a shuruq, and no dot is placed in the letter ל L to remind the reader of the sound U.
In Gen. 24:29 אֻלַי is written with a qubutz, but still with no dagesh in the following letter ל L to announce the sound U, as expected.
Possibly, when the dgeshiym were introduced into the biblical text this last short ULAY had a waw, which is now lost.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

In Gen. 19:19 we also encounter
וָמַתִּי 'and I die'. The attached waw is marked by a qametz and hence the following letter מ M is left dageshless. But, this M is marked by a patax, and hence the dot in the following letter ת T.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Yes, again, here the syllabic structure is consistent with the pointing.
/waa/mat/ti ------ /CV/ /CVC/ /CV/


1. the first syllable is open (CV), thus the tendency for the speaker to lengthen the vowel. A qametz then is consistent with the masoretic pronunciation.
2. the pathaq in the second syllable is a short vowel, which is consistent with a closed syllable (CVC). The closed syllable then requires gemination of the tav. Keep in mind this has nothing to do with the writing of the word, but everything to do with the pointing of it, which gives us phonological information, not orthography.

[Isaac Fried]

I am really sorry, but I don't know where you got this idea of "long" and "short" vowels. I have never heard somebody reading the qametz long, and the patax short, or vice versa.

Yet, I admit that it is not clear to me why a patax induces a dagesh but not the qametz. But, in any event, the dagesh is redundant now. As I read it, there is no difference whatsoever between וָמַתִּי with a dagesh and וָמַתִי without a dagesh.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

In Malachi 2:2 the word בִּרְכוֹתֵיכֶם is lacking an expected dagesh in the letter כ K. The reason being, methinks, is that at the time the dgeshim were entered into the biblical text, way before the invention of the niqud, the word used to be read differently, not with a xiriq under the first letter ב of this word.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

In Gen. 26:10
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ מַה זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ
we have in the words זֹּאת and לָּנוּ two instances of a dot left in the first letter to guard against gluing such as MAZOT.
Otherwise this dot has, in my experienced opinion, no bearing whatsoever on the reading. Certainly not the readings ZZOT and LLANU.

Isaac Fried, Boston University