Where is the dot?

For discussions which focus upon specific words, their origin, meaning, relationship to other ANE languages.
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: 1773
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Where is the dot?

Post by Isaac Fried »

Isaac Fried wrote
Try it. Delete all inner dots (except in בכפ) and you will see that you don't miss not one of them.
Ah, but I would possibly spare the mapik to distinguish between ילדה, 'girl', ילדה, 'gave birth', and ילדהּ, 'her child'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
ducky
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Where is the dot?

Post by ducky »

Isaac, you make me funny
It is not your choice.

The forms were created naturally by the people, and that is how they talked (with Lene and Forte Dagesh). and the six letters BGDKPT had two sounds.
and until now, the Yemenite pronounce them with two sounds.

You want it to fit the common modern speech but Hebrew is a traditional language when it comes to grammar and so on...
And even a 1,000 years before, everybody used the Tiberian grammar, but no one spoke it.
But its traditional way of grammar and style is kept up until these days (and probably forever).
David Hunter
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1773
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Where is the dot?

Post by Isaac Fried »

ducky writes
The forms were created naturally by the people, and that is how they talked (with Lene and Forte Dagesh). and the six letters BGDKPT had two sounds.
I am sorry but "and that is how they talked" is, I am afraid, nothing more than imaginary Hebrew history, figments of fertile imaginations. People did not talk with a dagesh "forte", nor with a dagesh "lene" (except possibly בכפ). These are inventions by latter Hebrew "grammarians", propagated by sleepy teachers, and foisted upon unsuspecting students. Hearing this, as a young boy, from my Hebrew teacher I saw right away its inherent fallacy.
The fact of the matter is that millions speak Hebrew now with total disregard to a dagesh "forte" and a dagesh "lene", and Hebrew still functions very well without this funny pair.
and until now, the Yemenite pronounce them with two sounds.
The Yemenite pronunciation of Hebrew is tainted by the Arabic dialect spoken around them, the same way that the East-European pronunciation of Hebrew is tainted by the local dialects spoken around them.
but Hebrew is a traditional language when it comes to grammar
"Grammar" is man made.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
ducky
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Where is the dot?

Post by ducky »

Hello Isaac,

First, you write your statements from an unknowledgeable base.
Did you ever study the dialects and their sources?
I don't know, but I think that you didn't.
And your statements about it is base on your own personal view from sitting on the couch (no offense).

Also, the six letters were really a natural talk.
1. I already showed you why this double sounds happened in those specific six letters (and not others)
2. You can check the early translations of private names, and see that the letter P is also PH and K is KH. So those translations show also that these letters were pronounced in two sounds.
David Hunter
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1773
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Where is the dot?

Post by Isaac Fried »

Isaac Fried wrote
Try it. Delete all inner dots (except in בכפ) and you will see that you don't miss not one of them.
I will explain (אני יסביר as they say it now in Hebrew) this claim of mine at some length, and possibly in a clearer manner.
So, in the "beginning" Hebrew used to be written with consonants only. This is acceptable for very simple texts, but is untenable for such elaborate texts as the evolving Hebrew sacred books. To remedy this, early scribes, say at the late First Temple era, dared to introduce into the text the letters yod and waw as reading props. The all consonant word גבנה, 'cheese', became by this גבינה, and the word חמה became by this חוֹמָה, 'wall'.
But this was still not enough. The sacred books could still be read in a bewildering number of different ways, according to a multitude of branching reading traditions. So, an additional system was imposed on the text, just for learning to read it right, which is the system of the unobtrusive inner dots to hint for (in today's terms) a patax, a xireq, and a qubuts.
Thus, at first it was עמּדי for the post niqud עִמָדִי, with a dot in the מ to hint at a xireq under the previous ע. If so, ask some people, why is there no dot in the letter ג of עֻגָה, 'cake', as in 1Kings 17:13?
עֲשִׂי לִי מִשָּׁם עֻגָה קְטַנָּה
Because, methinks, at the time of introducing the dgeshim, it used to be written in full as עוגה with an added waw making the dagesh unnecessary. The dagesh is needed only in כתיב חסר but not in כתיב מלא. Thus: שִלֵּם with a dagesh, but שִילֵם without a dagesh.
BTW, note the dagesh in מִשָּׁם and in קְטַנָּה.

There was another inner dot, this one introduced into the first letter of every word to clearly separate them. With time Hebrew speakers started to pronounce בגדכפת without an inner dot differently than with a dot. With improvements in the writing technology the dot in the first letter was removed, but was left, as a dubious gift, in בגדכפת.

There was a variation in the method of inserting a dot following אַ, אֻ, אִ, which is that if it was followed by a schwa, then the dot was moved one letter forward, for instance, עֻלְפֶּה of Ezekiel 31:15 with a dagesh in the פֶּ for the qubuts under the עֻ. With time this deferred dagesh was removed, except in בגדכפת, methinks.
Then there is the mapik.
In conclusion, the niqud renders all dageshim redundant.

But now a number of this forum enterprising members will raise a hackle, paying me back in my own coin, claiming that what Isaac is saying here is nothing but historical fiction and a mere figment of his imagination. OK, let it be so. But as the British are fond of saying: the proof is in the pudding. Here it is. Delete all inner dots (except in בכפ) and you will see that you don't miss not one of them.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
ducky
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Where is the dot?

Post by ducky »

Hello Isaac

You started good, bet then you made a mess.
You look at all of the Dagesh Forte as if it is the same sign, but it is not.
And while I can agree with you on some basic points, you make confusion with the rest of them.

When you say that the Hebrew waa pure consonantal, It is true.
But you need also to realize that the fact it was consonantal, it actually would write a lot of different forms in the same way.

The Niqqud treats the words according to their forms, not according to the spelling.
you can see the exact same word with the exact same meaning written one with כתיב חסר and once with כתיב מלא.
But this thing doesn't concern the basic form of the word (as you try to understand it like that).
And so, when you see the Niqqud, don't try to understand it according to the spelling, but try to understand it according to the "form".

Because as I said before, the consonantal way of the language causes a similar spelling to different forms.

As for the בגדכפת
Once they had only one sound, and in times (after a vowel in some conditions) they softened in the mouth. And the Niqqud represents this thing.

As for what we'll miss and what we won't miss...
This perspective of yours is your common comfort way, which you say: "I can understand it even like that".
But it is a matter of "fashion", and this is how You can understand.
If I would speak to an American man (like you) and pronounce every Het=ח as H=ה, you will still understand me, right?
After all this is the American accent of this letter.
And so, an American man, who speaks Hebrew naturally, may say that he doesn't need the Het letter at all, and it is understood even without it.

Eventually, anybody can deal with any accent/dialect that he is a custom to.
but that doesn't mean that the tradtional way needs to disappear.
Also today, people switch the P with F and the B with V, and they talk in the way that is comfortable to them, (but that is considered low class).
But anyway, anybody can understand them, But still, it is wrong.

I can speak with you English with bad syntx and bad accent and so on...
And you still understand me and wouldn't "miss a thing".
So let's cancel everything and start talking like the cave-men.
After all... As long as it is understood and we "won't miss a thing" - then what is wrong with that, right?
David Hunter
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1773
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Where is the dot?

Post by Isaac Fried »

ducky writes
I can speak with you English with bad syntx and bad accent and so on... And you still understand me and wouldn't "miss a thing".
No, I don't.
So let's cancel everything and start talking like the cave-men.
Don't underestimate cave-men.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1773
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Where is the dot?

Post by Isaac Fried »

ducky wrote
You started good, bet (but) then you made a mess.
This is usually the case with me.
The Niqqud treats the words according to their forms, not according to the spelling. And so, when you see the Niqqud, don't try to understand it according to the spelling, but try to understand it according to the "form".
This thing of the "form" needs explaining. Is שִלֵּם with a dot of a different "form" than שִלֵם sans dot? And what about שִילֵם in כתיב מלא?
This perspective of yours is your common comfort way, which you say: "I can understand it even like that".
But it is a matter of "fashion", and this is how You can understand.
This is opaque, dim, I am unable to see through it. What is this "fashion"?
Also today, people switch the P with F and the B with V, and they talk in the way that is comfortable to them, (but that is considered low class). But anyway, anybody can understand them, But still, it is wrong.
I do it all the time, even as I read the HB in public. I would certainly replace בִשְׁתִי, בְעֵרֶב, בְעוֹר by בִּשְׁתִי, בְּעֵרֶב, בְּעוֹר with a dagesh in each initial ב, with no compunction whatsoever.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
ducky
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Where is the dot?

Post by ducky »

Isaac Fried wrote:This thing of the "form" needs explaining. Is שִלֵּם with a dot of a different "form" than שִלֵם sans dot? And what about שִילֵם in כתיב מלא?
The שִלֵּם is a form of "qittel" (as Pi'el). This is the form. It is not just a Hebrew thing, but a Semitic thing. This form is based on being with Dagesh. The Dagesh is part of the form itself, and so there is no form of שִׁלֵם without Dagesh. This is not an invention, but part of the basic signs of this form that demands its second root letter to be doubled.
Isaac Fried wrote:This is opaque, dim, I am unable to see through it. What is this "fashion"?
Language is not mathematics, right?
And as English was spoken in a "strange" way 300 years ago or 500 years ago, and it was still right, So is the English today is still right.
And also in our times, there are the southern accent, the Yankee accent and the British accent and so on...
To you, it sounds the same.
But if a stranger to the English language would come and start writing the vowels that he hears, he would give different vowels to each accent, and also a different amount of vowels for each accent.
But all of them are "Good English" and the difference is just because of "fashion" that was then (or there) they dress like that, and now (or here), they dress it like this.

So is Hebrew.
There is a value to study the "fashion" of "then" and/or of "there".
This is part of the study - and it is the right thing to do.
But we shouldn't come to this study with a complaint of "I think this accent is wrong" or "this accent is made up (because you see it differently in another place or another time)".

Just differ your study to two parts.
1. studying the differences between the accents that are seen (in times and/or places).
And study each one as it is. Plus trying to figure up the changes.
2. When you dealing with the accepted grammar forms (as "Classic Hebrew") I.E. the MT, you should study it according to its pattern. Since its Hebrew is good as any other Hebrew dialect that you may find. But since we follow this dialect's grammar rules. It is studied as it is.

Just differ your two studies.
There are grammar books that teache the MT's way - and that is one subject.
And there are Maorah's book (and others) that deals with other dialects of Hebrew - and that is another subject.

Isaac Fried wrote:I do it all the time, even as I read the HB in public. I would certainly replace בִשְׁתִי, בְעֵרֶב, בְעוֹר by בִּשְׁתִי, בְּעֵרֶב, בְּעוֹר with a dagesh in each initial ב, with no compunction whatsoever.
Well, that is on you.
David Hunter
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Where is the dot?

Post by Jason Hare »

ducky wrote:The שִלֵּם is a form of "qittel" (as Pi'el). This is the form. It is not just a Hebrew thing, but a Semitic thing. This form is based on being with Dagesh. The Dagesh is part of the form itself, and so there is no form of שִׁלֵם without Dagesh. This is not an invention, but part of the basic signs of this form that demands its second root letter to be doubled.
Absolutely correct, except that in the biblical language it was בֵּרַךְ and שִׁלַּם rather than בֵּרֵךְ and שִׁלֵּם.

Genesis 24:1
וְאַבְרָהָם זָקֵן בָּא בַּיָּמִים וְיַהְוֶה בֵּרַךְ אֶת־אַבְרָהָם בַּכֹּל
Now Abraham was old and aging, and Yahweh blessed Abraham in everything.

Judges 1:7
וַיֹּ֫אמֶר אֲדֹנִי־בֶזֶק שִׁבְעִים מְלָכִים בְּהֹנוֹת יְדֵיהֶם וְרַגְלֵיהֶם מְקֻצָּצִים הָיוּ מְלַקְּטִים תַּחַת שֻׁלְחָנִי כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂ֫יתִי כֵּן שִׁלַּם־לִי אֱלֹהִים וַיְבִיאֻ֫הוּ יְרוּשָׁלִַם וַיָּ֫מָת שָׁם
And Adoni-bezek said: "Seventy kings with their thumbs and big toes cut off gathered food under my table; as I have done, so has God repaid me." And they brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died.
ducky wrote:Language is not mathematics, right?
And as English was spoken in a "strange" way 300 years ago or 500 years ago, and it was still right, So is the English today is still right.
And also in our times, there are the southern accent, the Yankee accent and the British accent and so on...
To you, it sounds the same.
But if a stranger to the English language would come and start writing the vowels that he hears, he would give different vowels to each accent, and also a different amount of vowels for each accent.
But all of them are "Good English" and the difference is just because of "fashion" that was then (or there) they dress like that, and now (or here), they dress it like this.

So is Hebrew.
There is a value to study the "fashion" of "then" and/or of "there".
This is part of the study - and it is the right thing to do.
But we shouldn't come to this study with a complaint of "I think this accent is wrong" or "this accent is made up (because you see it differently in another place or another time)".
Your comments here are both refreshing and enlightened.

It does seem, though, that "language is not mathematics" will go over well with Isaac. He relates to language precisely as he does to mathematics.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Post Reply