A curious dagesh in Ex. 25:5

The main place for discussion the Hebrew Bible, its language and message.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

A curious dagesh in Ex. 25:5

Postby Isaac Fried » Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:24 pm

I suspect that the uncalled for dagesh in the letter D of מאדמים M-ADAM-IYM, 'dyed red', of Ex. 25:5 is an an indication of a "masoretic" override of an earlier different reading.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

markofcain
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:58 am
Location: Sarasota, FL USA
Contact:

Re: A curious dagesh in Ex. 25:5

Postby markofcain » Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:51 pm

Isaac Fried wrote:I suspect that the uncalled for dagesh in the letter D of מאדמים M-ADAM-IYM, 'dyed red', of Ex. 25:5 is an an indication of a "masoretic" override of an earlier different reading.

Isaac Fried, Boston University


מְאָדָּמִים

Looks like it is a pual participle but one of those cases where the qamets hatuph is used instead of the qibbuts under the first radical. The piel and pual forms partly are indicated by the strengthen (dagash forte) the of middle radical (that is the explanation for the "uncalled for" dagesh). The מְ is typically used as the prefix of the participle.
Mark Cain
Sarasota, FL USA

http://www.markcain.com

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: A curious dagesh in Ex. 25:5

Postby Isaac Fried » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:19 pm

1. So you are also of the opinion that the word was "originally" M-UDAM-IYM, with a qibbuts under the aleph, which would account for the dagesh. Is the qamets a scribal error, or was it placed there deliberately to accommodate a variant tradition?

2. I would discount the "strengthening" of the middle radical D. The inner dot, in my opinion, is merely a vestige of a pre NUQUD reading hint.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

markofcain
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:58 am
Location: Sarasota, FL USA
Contact:

Re: A curious dagesh in Ex. 25:5

Postby markofcain » Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:12 am

Isaac Fried wrote:1. So you are also of the opinion that the word was "originally" M-UDAM-IYM, with a qibbuts under the aleph, which would account for the dagesh. Is the qamets a scribal error, or was it placed there deliberately to accommodate a variant tradition?


Gesenius indicates this verse and the occurrence of this word as an example in his topic # 52.4. Piel and Pual.

https://archive.org/stream/GeseniusHebrewGrammarPdf/Gesenius-HebrewGrammar#page/n135/mode/1up
Mark Cain
Sarasota, FL USA

http://www.markcain.com

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: A curious dagesh in Ex. 25:5

Postby Isaac Fried » Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:53 pm

1.So, also according to Gesenius the dot in the letter D is reason enough to assume that the qamarz under the letter aleph of M-ADAM should have been a qubbutz.
2. It is interesting that according to Gesenius the word T-RACX-EU of Ps. 62:4, which is with a qamatc under the letter R, and with a dot in the letter C, is possibly actually with a patax under the letter R.
3. I find it interesting that he thinks the plene writing of YULAD is a later addition, after the dot has been placed in the letter L.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

User avatar
George Athas
Moderator
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:31 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: A curious dagesh in Ex. 25:5

Postby George Athas » Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:35 pm

The vowel beneath the aleph is a qames hatuf, which is a short o-class vowel. It is not a qames, which is a long a-class vowel. This pointing fits perfectly with the Masoretic system. The presence of Mem at the front confirms a Pual.
GEORGE ATHAS
Co-Moderator, B-Hebrew
Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (http://moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests