Made for the eye, confounds the tongue

[Isaac Fried]

The dagesh, the inner dot, is in my opinion, not a part of the niqud, has no vocal value (certainly no "gemination"), and was introduced as a mere visual reading prop way before the invention of the niqud, possibly even prior to the LXX. I doubt that the humble NAQDANIYM (the "masoretes") would have dared to deface a letter in the Holy Book.
The dot is not needed in plene writing since the mater lectionis (אִמוּת הקריאה) takes on the same function.
דא עקא with time, the speakers of Hebrew got into the foppish habit of pronouncing בגדכפת (Notice the similarity between F and P) harder upon seeing them pregnant with dot in their bosom, or, softer seeing them barren.
This leads to awkward situations in spoken Hebrew, for instance, גְּבוּרָה is read GVURAH (forget the meshugas of the schwa "mobile") with a soft B, but גִּבּוֹר is read GIBOR with a hard B. The letter ב of גִּבּוֹר is dgusha just to mark the previous hireq. But what if I write in full גיבור, then in theory it should be read GIYVOR, but it is not so, GIBOR is GIBOR once and for all.
However, the name, say, of the kibutz כֶּרֶם שָׁלוֹם starts with a hard K, just because a dot is found, for whatever reason, in it. On the Israeli Radio it often turns into the annoying לְחֶרֶם שָׁלוֹם, with no distinction in the spoken language between ח and a soft K.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

What was I busy at this Friday?
Preparing to read the next day Jer. 46:13-28 I occupied myself with playing a latter-day "masorete", and added-in all the lost (or omitted) dgeshim. Not in the book, but only on a printout with larger letters made to see it all good.
And this is what I dotted, just for myself:
הַגִּידוּ בְמִצְרַיִם -> הַגִּידוּ בְּמִצְרַיִם
וְהַשְׁמִיעוּ בְמִגְדּוֹל -> וְהַשְׁמִיעוּ בְּמִגְדּוֹל
וְהַשְׁמִיעוּ בְנֹף וּבְתַחְפַּנְחֵס -> הַשְׁמִיעוּ בְּנֹף וּבְּתַחְפַּנְחֵס
וּכְכַרְמֶל -> וּכְּכַּרְמֶל
בָּא בָא -> בָּא בָּא
גַּם שְׂכִרֶיהָ בְקִרְבָּהּ -> גַּם שְׂכִרֶיהָ בְּקִרְבָּהּ
כִּי בְחַיִל יֵלֵכוּ -> כִּי בְּחַיִל יֵלֵכוּ
וּבְקַרְדֻּמּוֹת -> וּבְּקַרְדֻּמּוֹת
הִנְנִי פוֹקֵד -> הִנְנִי פּוֹקֵד
וּבְיַד -> וּבְּיַד
וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן -> וְאַחֲרֵי כֵּן
כִּי אֶעֱשֶׂה כָלָה -> כִּי אֶעֱשֶׂה כָּלָה
לֹא אֶעֱשֶׂה כָלָה -> לֹא אֶעֱשֶׂה כָּלָה
Not that the dot is worth its size; I have inserted it just to remind myself to read כ as ק, not as ח.
Then I have read it out all this way, and not one of the many listeners uttered even one word of disapproval, not during the reading, and not after it.
I have spared the יְפֵה פִיָּה ' superbly beautiful', of verse 20 since it is being read today as the single word יְפֵהפִיָּה.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

It is worth drawing attention here to the unusual dot it the last letter ת of אַתְּ, 'you f.'. Possibly, the dagesh, correctly coming after a patah, was left there to distinguish the word from other possible את, or the word was once אתי, corresponding to the male form אַתָּה, which is also with, a now redundant, dagesh in the T.

Isaac Fried, Boston University