אִכּוּן, a new Hebrew word

[Isaac Fried]

Rules of grammar are invented generalizations based on certain assumptions and understandings, that may be true or not.
The question on the dagesh goes deeper than what are the rules. The cardinal, existential, question on the dagesh is when was it introduced, by who, and for what purpose. The prevailing "official" edict on the dagesh (say, "forte") is that it was introduced by the Tiberias naqdanitm ("masoretes") to double ("geminate") a consonant.
I, and possibly others, think that this is historical fiction, a fallacy bordering on a lie, perpetuated by dreamy teachers foisting it upon unsuspecting sleepy students, who anyway never "double" anything.
The dagesh, I claim, was not introduced by the (Karaite קראים?) naqdaniym, but is rather a much earlier introduction into the niqudless Hebrew script to provide needed hints for the missing, unmarked, vowels in כתיב חסר. It has nothing (nothing!) to do with the vocalization of the Hebrew word. No "gemination" and no other fabricated inventions (such as schwa "mobile", and "short" and "long" vowels).
The dagesh in the letter ב of שִבֵּר, for instance, was placed there to call attention to the xiriq under the first שׁ letter (but not needed if written שיבר in full). Not for the "gemination" of the letter ב, nor for "hardening" it. So why do we read this בּ as a "hard" B and not a "soft" V? Because we are conditioned now to do so upon seeing a dot inside it, and this, for whatever reason the dot is placed there.
The rest directly follows from this.
One more thing. Wikipedia strives to "explain" the dagesh following the ה הידיעה thus:
"The letter follows the definite article, the word "the". For example, ‫שָׁמָיִם‬ shamayim "heaven(s)" in Gen 1:8 is ‫הַשָּׁמַיִם‬ Hashshamayim "the heaven(s)" in Gen 1:1. This is because the definite article was originally a stand-alone particle הַל hal, but at some early stage in ancient Hebrew it contracted into a prefix הַ 'ha-', and the loss of the ל 'l' was compensated for by doubling the following letter."
Is there someone out there in this world who buys this story of the הַל and the "compensation" for the lost ל in doubling the following letter? Does one believe that we waste now vocal time and energy in doubling the letter ש of הַשָּׁמַיִם to maintain the blessed memory of a ל lost (peut etre oui peut etre non) to Hebrew speech some 4000 years ago? Did the naqdaniym really come along thousands of years later to save the vestige of his prehistoric relic ( להציב לו יד ושם ) with a dagesh? Or is it that the letter ש of הַשָּׁמַיִם has a dagesh since it follows a patax?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jason Hare]

Yes, we believe that. Why? It happens naturally still to this day in the sun letters in Arabic, while the moon letters show the -l- standing without affecting the following lettes. Thus, al- "the" with shams "sun" becomes ash-shams (indicated by shadda), while al- "the" with qamar "moon" becomes al-qamar. It happens naturally in other Semitic languages, and it happened naturally in Hebrew.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason says

It happens naturally in other Semitic languages, and it happened naturally in Hebrew.

Jason, it is not clear what happened "naturally" in Hebrew. Enlighten the perplexed, please. Do you actually double, now in Tel Aviv, the letter ש of הַשָּׁמַיִם to remind your interlocutors of the tragic loss of a lamed some 4000 years ago?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jason Hare]

I have stated several times that we do not pronounce doubled letters in Hebrew today. The same is true of English. The prefix in- is used to negate many adjective forms derived from Latin. But, the n is in most cases lost in favor of doubling the first letter of the word. We don't pronounced doubled consonants in English (as in modern Hebrew), but that doesn't mean that they are not there.

in- + responsible > irresponsible
in- + logical > illogical
in- + possible > impossible
in- + legible > illegible
in- + edible > inedible
in- + replaceable > irreplaceable
in- + mortal > immortal
in- + mobile > immobile

Do you pronounce the ll in illogical any differently than a single l? Does that mean that it didn't come from this process or that the l isn't doubled or that we should act like it isn't the case? This is the relevance of what you're asking. It is irrelevant whether we pronounce the doubled consonant. Whether you hear it or not, it's there.

No, I don't pronounce immortal as two m's, but there are two m's there. I also don't pronounce המשפט as two מ's, but there are two מ's there. That's just how it works.

[Jason Hare]

And, by the way, what I am saying on this thread is what is taught in EVERY Hebrew grammar. It isn't new information. You are the one who rejects everything that anyone other than yourself has to say. Therefore, the onus probandi is on you to prove that what every grammarian says is wrong. I don't have to prove anything to you, yet you keep trying to shift the burden on to me. Sorry, man. That isn't how it works. You've got everything backwards.

I'm here just so that someone will oppose the things you say and not let it look like B-Hebrew is owned and run by you, and that if someone disagrees with you, then he's taken a wrong turn somewhere. You are teaching fringe things that have nothing to do with the study of Hebrew, and you've done all you can to dominate this forum and chase everyone else away. I'm simply exhausted from reading the nonsense you post on this forum and wish that people would stand up to you. It's great that you've written your "book" full of these things. Why not just let it be published and let your case be made? You don't have to keep posting and keep posting on these things. No one who doesn't agree with you is going to be won over by this.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason says

I have stated several times that we do not pronounce doubled letters in Hebrew today.

That's true. Conclusion: there is no dagesh "forte" any more in Hebrew.

I also don't pronounce המשפט as two מ's, but there are two מ's there.

It is not clear to me what you mean by "but there are two מ's there". I see in המשפט only one מ.

That's just how it works.

Jason, it is not clear to me what you mean by "That's just how it works". What is this "it" and what is it that "works"

I'm here just so that someone will oppose the things you say

Jason, you don't know how glad I am that people stand up to oppose me. Keep doing it.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jason Hare]

Based on your responses, I cannot conclude whether you are incapable of taking in what someone says to you or simply disinterested in doing so. I just shake my head in wonder at the attention that you draw on this forum and how no one else seems to use the forum at all, and I wonder if these things are somehow connected. I wish that B-Hebrew were a place that encouraged discussion of things related to pedagogy and scholarship, but it's become something entirely other. It would be nice to find in you a partner for bringing in new people and interesting them in the Hebrew language, but you make Hebrew seem unnatural and meaningless, and since you dominate the forum with these types of posts, those who might like to join find nothing here of value. Maybe I just need to give up and let you have it. There are other places on the web where we can have discussions about the language. Maybe B-Hebrew is done and I should move on.

[Jason Hare]

Yeah, I guess that's the decision I need to make for myself. If no one is going to be using this forum, anyway, I'll just let you have it to yourself. Feel free to keep posting the nonsense. You seem to enjoy it. I've removed B-Hebrew from my quicklinks, and I'll figure out how to have myself removed. Happy typing, Isaac. Stay healthy in this difficult time. I'm done.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason, just before you go spare us a tiny moment to explain how in המשפט "there are two מ's there" when we obviously see there only one מ and hear there only one מ.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Jason, one more thing before you go. You say "I just shake my head in wonder at the attention that you draw on this forum".
The reason I draw some attention on this form is because people are eager to hear uncensored, fresh and interesting ideas on the Hebrew language, free and differing from the tiresome dogmatic preaching of the stale "grammar" books.
This is the beauty of this forum. You will find it nowhere else.

Isaac Fried, Boston University