On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

[Jason Hare]

Jason writes,

The dagesh is clearly part of the noun

There is no such thing as a dagesh being "clearly part of the noun". Whatever is in the noun is "clearly part of the noun".

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

This could be naught but a very clear explanation rooted in obviously profound and inveterate consideration. It is yet another link in the chain that is your systematic approach to the Hebrew language and its morphology. "It's random." That's a great approach to linguistic analysis that does so much to disseminate better understanding of the language and the text that emerged as its expression. This has been so rewarding and corrective for me, as I've clearly been won over by "it's random" when the previous theory was so well developed and widely explanatory.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read Gesenius or studied through an actual grammar that addresses Hebrew systematically? I'm at a loss. You and Karl come to such divergent disagreements on how you understand the text, yet you both use the same methods for discovery — rejecting the whole of our previous knowledge of the language and developing your own theories based simply on your opinions, not taking all of anything into account. No systematic approach. No answer for anything. "It's random." Yep.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason writes

That isn't random at all. The dagesh in שַׁבָּת šabbāṯ is dagesh forte (דגש חזק). It is part of the noun pattern (like גַּנָּן gannān and קַשָּׁת qaššāṯ). There's nothing random about it. The pattern here is CaCCāC (where C is a consonant, a is pataḥ, and ā is kamats). By this right, the same pattern is filled by words like רַקְדָּן raqdān, in which the two internal consonants (CC) are not the same letter.

CaCCāC is not a "pattern", it is a mere stringing game of over-marked, under-marked and repeated English letters. The Hebrew word שַׁבָּת contains one, and only one, letter ב. I have never ever heard שַׁבָּת being pronounced as šabbāṯ or šabbbāṯ or šabbbbāṯ. For what?
A dagesh was placed in the letter B of שַׁבָּת not to harden it, nor to "double" it.
The letter ב of שַׁבָּת follows a vowel, whereas the letter ד of רַקְדָּן follows a consonant.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

CaCCāC is not a "pattern", it is a mere stringing game of over-marked, under-marked and repeated English letters. The Hebrew word שַׁבָּת contains one, and only one, letter ב. I have never ever heard שַׁבָּת being pronounced as šabbāṯ or šabbbāṯ or šabbbbāṯ. For what?
A dagesh was placed in the letter B of שַׁבָּת not to harden it, nor to "double" it.
The letter ב of שַׁבָּת follows a vowel, whereas the letter ד of רַקְדָּן follows a consonant.

How about the English word "cabbage"? Do you hear two b's in that word? Do you pronounce it as cabbbbbbbbbage? Or, is it enough to have a doubled letter, acknowledge as a doubled letter, sound identical to a single letter? How about "better"? Do you pronounce it like you would beter, better, bettter, betttter? Does the doubled letter do something in English to generally keep a vowel short (like the difference between hater and hatter, in which the first is long ā and the second is short ă)? Or do you make these silly and puerile objections only to the Hebrew language? English can have doubled letters pronounced as single sounds, but Hebrew cannot?

EVERYONE explains that the dagesh forte doubles letters. It doesn't matter if you don't hear it that way. The letter is doubled, and the purpose is OFTEN to preserve a short vowel (because closed unaccented syllables have short vowels).

Again, have you ever done a systematic study of Hebrew in which you actually take the explanations of the grammarians into account? Do you acknowledge that there are people in the world who have a better grasp of the Hebrew language than you yourself, or is your personal ear the be-all-and-end-all of the Hebrew academy?

[Jason Hare]

From the Hebrew Language Academy on this question:

דגש חזק סוגר הברה

דגש חזק הוא דגש המכפיל את העיצור שהוא בא בו. למשל: זַמָּר=זַמְ-מָר, שִׁלֵּם=שִׁלְ-לֵם. דגש חזק בא תמיד לאחר תנועה וסוגר את ההברה שלפניו. לפיכך אם הברה זו אינה מוטעמת היא תנוקד בתנועה קטנה: זַמָּר, שִׁלֵּם, צְהֻבָּה, אֶפֹּל. (בהמשך יפורטו המקרים העיקריים שיש בהם דגש חזק.)

Can't get any clearer than that. You're far outside of the academic consensus on this. You disagree with the Hebrew Language Academy. You disagree with Gesenius. You disagree with Weingreen. You disagree with Lamdin. You disagree with Kutz and Josberger. You disagree with Seow. You disagree with EVERY reputable author of Hebrew grammar.

Yet you think that you can declare by fiat that you're correct and everyone else in the world is wrong. I'm sorry, but that isn't how this (or anything else) works.

[kwrandolph]

You and Karl come to such divergent disagreements on how you understand the text, yet you both use the same methods for discovery — rejecting the whole of our previous knowledge of the language and developing your own theories based simply on your opinions, not taking all of anything into account. No systematic approach. No answer for anything. "It's random." Yep.

LOL! I mean really, LOL!

From what I can see, Isaac Fried starts with a theory then tries to apply it to the text.

Gesenius started with a theory, then worked to apply it to the text. It was s different theory than what Isaac Fried starts with, but a theory nonetheless.

Both of those approaches are backwards from the scientific method.

The scientific method starts with observation, then tries to make a theory that explains the observation.

I have tried to follow the scientific method.

I was taught the Gesenius theory as presented in a textbook by Weingreen. But when I read Tanakh and tried to apply Gesenius’ theory to the text, there were too many exceptions to the rules. As Isaac Fried said, at times it looked random.

I didn’t intend to reject previous knowledge. I was just forced to by the evidence. Even there I didn’t reject all previous knowledge, not by a long shot, mainly that concerned with verbal usages.

One of the things I noticed is that the binyanim are a type of conjugations. They are not separate roots. As conjugations, they impart meanings to the verbs.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason writes

How about the English word "cabbage"? Do you hear two b's in that word?

The letter B in "cabbage" stands hemmed between two consonants and hence entering it from the before-standing vowel A and leaving it into the aft-standing vowel A creates a semblance of a double letter B. So is also the letter T of "better". It is a natural vocal phenomenon and does not require the doubling of the letter (Hebrew does not do it) nor does it call for a dagesh.

EVERYONE explains that the dagesh forte doubles letters.

Except that it is not seen doubled, nor is it being heard doubled. it is just that "EVERYONE explains" it so.

From the Hebrew Language Academy on this question:

The Hebrew Language "Academy" is not an academy, it is a faith based bureaucracy. They are sure and certain that both the dagesh "forte" and the schwa "mobile" were handed down to Moses on mount Sinai. One may safely ignore them.

You disagree with the Hebrew Language Academy. You disagree with Gesenius. You disagree with Weingreen. You disagree with Lamdin. You disagree with Kutz and Josberger. You disagree with Seow. You disagree with EVERY reputable author of Hebrew grammar.

They conveniently repeat one after the other the same nonsense.

Yet you think that you can declare by fiat that you're correct and everyone else in the world is wrong. I'm sorry, but that isn't how this (or anything else) works.

The only thing that "works" is the truth.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

If you find yourself standing on a lone ledge against all of academia, you might ask yourself if your theories don't need to be reconsidered. Either that, or you should have something a bit better than "it's random" for an explanation.

[Isaac Fried]

Isaac Fried wrote

The letter B in "cabbage" stands hemmed between two consonants

Should have been
The letter B in "cabbage" stands hemmed between two vowels (vowels!)

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com