Dagesh in final kaf
AMK Judaica (Ari)
Thanks,
Ari
Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
>
--
Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP
Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine (Emergency Medicine)
Scholar-in-Residence, Center for Bioethics
Columbia University
Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
wrote:
> Why and when?
>
I don't know "why", any more than I know any of the secrets behind the
mesora. But as to when, the following is what I have heard, though I
have not made a check of all occurrences to see it this holds true.
Dagesh in final kaf occurs in words ending in segol for next-to-last
syllable, followed by long khaff, which is sometimes long kaff. For a
verb, echa means that "you" are the indirect object, i.e., the
beneficiary of the action. Veyishmerecha means not that He will guard
YOU, but that as Rashi puts it, "sheyisvorchu NECHOSECHO". But
Viychuneka means (Rashi) veyitei LECHA chayn". "You" are the direct
object of the verb.
When it is a noun, and echa is a possessive ending, as far as I know
(subject, of course, to being corrected), it is alway echa without
dagesh.
Words like vayayvk, vayashk, have a dagesh in the final kaff in
keeping with the usual rule that when a word ends with two schewa
nachs under the final two letters, and the final letter is a
begedkefes, it always takes a dagesh.
GEK
whishing good Shabbos to everyone
R. Rich Wolpoe
«Words like ... "vayashk" have a dagesh in the final kaff"
Is there a vayashk with a Kaff? I thought it had a "quf"
Shalom and Regards, RRW
Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
On Dec 9, 12:13 pm, "R. Rich Wolpoe" <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> «Words like ... "vayashk" have a dagesh in the final kaff"
>
> Is there a vayashk with a Kaff? I thought it had a "quf"
>
Yes, I concede. I did say that my remarks were subject to being
corrected. Vayasht has dagesh in final tav.
GEK
R. Rich Wolpoe
«Yes, I concede. I did say that my remarks were subject to being corrected. Vayasht has dagesh in final tav.
GEK»
Aslo from Haftoras lech lecha
"Yard" - the final daleth has a dageish - I'm told due to its following a sh'va nach and itself having a sh'va.
In general I find these cases
fascinating Namely -
Vayeivk
Vayeisht
Yard
Etc.
Shalom and Regards, RRW
Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
wrote:
appears to be a rule, or at least a pattern, that when a final
begedkefes letter is preceeded by a schewa, the bgdkfs takes a dagesh
(qal). Is your fascination due to the infrequency of such occurrences?
Then there is another fascination rule here. Normall, when a final
letter is a consonant colsing te final syllable, the schewa nach under
that final consonant is implied, but not actually written (or
printed). But in the above cases, the schewa is actually written.
Other exceptions where a final schewa is actually written are a final
long chaff (or kaff), and the tov of the word "at" (or the Aramaic
"ant").
GEK
R. Rich Wolpoe
letter is a consonant colsing te final syllable, the schewa nach under that final consonant is implied, but not actually written (or printed). But in the above cases, the schewa is actually written.»
And aiui this goes along with the dagesh, it seems the dagesh almost forces the explicit sh'va in lieu of an implied one
Moreover can we really be certain that this final sh'va is indeed nach when it has a dageish in it?
It's a point to ponder.. :-)
Shalom and Regards, RRW
AMK Judaica
final letter doesn't take sheva na
shabbat shalom,
ari
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh
Brooklyn, New York
**************
> Moreover can we really be certain that this final sh'va is indeed nach when it has a dageish in it?
>
> It's a point to ponder.. :-)
> Shalom and Regards, RRW
>
AMK Judaica
"> Why "fascinating", any more than any other "rule" of deeqdooq? "
if RRW is fascinated by the secrets of dikduk let it be so!
R. Rich Wolpoe
RRW:
final letter doesn't take sheva na
shabbat shalom,
ari
OK so let me ask -
How do we know that?
If it's 100% sh'va nach,
Then why print it explicitly in the final letter
EG a Mappik heih at the end of a word has no such sh'va?
Shalom and Regards, RRW
R. Rich Wolpoe
R. Rich Wolpoe
GEK
«Why "fascinating", any more than any other "rule" of deeqdooq?»
Well it's all about conditioning, de-sensitizing, comfort level, familiarity
EG 1 patach g'nuvah
MOST Hebrew readers get patach g'nuvah WRT heth, but many do NOT get if for ayin or mappik heh
EG 2 mishta'eh lah
Most seem to feel that morphing lah to alehu is "no big deal"
But morphing the alpeh to a heh in mishta'eh IS a big deal
To me it seems because lah---> aleha is more common but not because it's any less impactful.
Shalom and Regards, RRW
MG
that change to a segol in those forms? In cases where it is not
possessive but replaces "ot'cha", precisely to distinguish it from the
possessive?
So shim-cha changes to shim-echa in a pausal form
but O-decha changes to O-dekka, as Ot'cha would change to O'tach in a
psual form, shva in the chaf rather than dagesh.
So I don't think it is related to being a direct or indirect object.
On Dec 9, 12:10 pm, "Giorgies E. Kepipesiom" <kepipes...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
MG
not get a dagesh but ve'chunekka does
> > whishing good Shabbos to everyone- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Zev Sero
And I thought you were talking about "vayishb".
--
Zev Sero If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
return to all the places that have been given to them.
- Yitzchak Rabin
AMK Judaica
MARK:
what about ar'eka?
shabbat shalom,
ari
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh
Brooklyn, New York
**************
> Subject: [leining] Re: Dagesh in final kaf
> From: markgi...@yahoo.com
> To: lei...@googlegroups.com
MG
siluq.
I can't think of ar'eka on a non-pausal form.
On Dec 9, 2:36 pm, AMK Judaica <amkjuda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> agh. i brought this up and too busy to participate because better finish cooking before wife gets home.
>
> MARK:
>
> what about ar'eka?
>
> shabbat shalom,
>
> ari
>
> Ari Kinsberg
> MA, PharmD, RPh
> Brooklyn, New York
> **************
>
> Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. It's the easiest way to save a child's life.
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:13:13 -0800
> > Subject: [leining] Re: Dagesh in final kaf
> > From: markginsb...@yahoo.com
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
MG
I remember seeing an explanation of this somewhere, I'll have to find
it.
> > > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
R. Rich Wolpoe
AMK
«MARK:
what about ar'eka?»
The heh has been dropped.
GS
MG
Basicallly when the third root letter drops and the chaf represents a
pronoun (not possessive) then the chaf will get a dagesh in those
pausal forms that change to segol.
So areka (like odeka) does indeed follow this pattern.
R. Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> AMK
> «MARK:
>
> what about ar'eka?»
>
> The heh has been dropped.
>
> GS
>
> Shalom and Regards, RRW
>
Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
>
> "> Why "fascinating", any more than any other "rule" of deeqdooq? "
>
> do you take candy away from little kids also? tell them there is no tooth fairy? explain magic tricks?
> if RRW is fascinated by the secrets of dikduk let it be so!
I certainly do not take candy away from little children; though these
days I would be afraid to give them any, lest I be suspected of all
sorts of untoward designs. Tooth fairy and magic tricks probably
belong in the same category as santa claus, and I suspect one needs to
consult a rav more horaa about whether it is permissible to tell
children such stories.
I certainly do not wish to take away anyone's fascination with
deeqdooq "secrets". I was merely enquiring what it is about this
particular secret that RRW finds fascinating. And you will not that I
did point out another aspect of these same words that might be equally
fascinating.
Good Shabbos to all.
GEK
marshall...@comcast.net
From: "MG" <markgi...@yahoo.com>
To: "leining" <lei...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2011 12:18:18 PM
Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Dagesh in final kaf
Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
> siluq.
> I can't think of ar'eka on a non-pausal form.
And right here we have disproved the hypothesis I was taught.
Certainly the "you" is not what is being shown. It is the land that is
being shown "to you". After all these years I no longer remember who
taught me that rule, so I am unable to tell them they were wrong.
GEK
Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
> Which means it's a dag esh h azak, not a dagesh kal.
Another rule I was taught (subjet to being disproved, but accepted by
me until such disproof be forthcoming) is that a dagesh chazaq NEVER
appears in a final letter.
GEK
Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
standard "rules" taught to elementary students of deeqdooq is that
when there are two schewa's consecutively, the first is nach and the
second is na, EXCEPT when they are the final two letters of the word.
One of the mnemonics for schewa nach (to which not everyone agrees) is
QOSeM, qoof-vov-samach-mem, where the samech stands for "sof", meaning
that a schewa (written or implied) under a final letter is nach.
GEK
R. Rich Wolpoe
« one of the standard "rules" taught to elementary students of deeqdooq is that when there are two schewa's consecutively, the first is nach and the second is na, EXCEPT when they are the final two letters of the word.
One of the mnemonics for schewa nach (to which not everyone agrees) is
QOSeM, qoof-vov-samach-mem, where the samech stands for "sof", meaning
that a schewa (written or implied) under a final letter is nach.
"Still I wonder..."
Where else do we have sh'va nach in a letter containing a dagesh?
I mean to imply that these cases are exceptional already, and therefore I wonder if the general rules do apply.
Also query for information - in EG
Vayishb
Yasyeisht
Vayeivk
Are these d'geishim qal or koveid?
Gut Voch
Shalom and Regards, RRW
MG
dagesh hazak at the end of a word.
I should restate what I said earlier somewhat -- that the final kaf
degusha does not seem to come with the "shlemim", i.e. shoroshim that
retain all of their letters. Such as "Vyishmerecha", or "Asbiecha".
In "Arekka" (shoresh Resh-Aleph-Heh) the final heh does drop, but we
generally don't find a dagesh chazak to replace the dropped third root
letter in nachei lamed verbs.
In "VeChunekka" (shoresh Het-Nun-Nun) the middle nun drops and we
indeed have a dagesh hazak in the remaining nun.
The same would go for words that have a shva at their last letter,
vaYishb, vaYaysht, vaYichad...these are all Dagesh Kals.
On Dec 9, 3:38 pm, marshall_schwa...@comcast.net wrote:
> Which means it's a dag esh h azak, not a dagesh kal.
> > > From: markginsb...@yahoo.com
> > > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.
Zev Sero
> I should restate what I said earlier somewhat -- that the final kaf
> degusha does not seem to come with the "shlemim", i.e. shoroshim that
> retain all of their letters. Such as "Vyishmerecha", or "Asbiecha".
Huh? Asbi`eka *does* have a final kaf. Perhaps you were thinking of
"ashbi`acha".
MG
realize most siddurim have a dagesh in this word in the shir shel yom.
Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
> Not according to the Aleppo Codex (or Leningrad for that matter). I
> realize most siddurim have a dagesh in this word in the shir shel yom.
>
Most tanachs and most Tehillims also have a dagesh. I think someone
remarked on this in the old Mahpach group. Far more important than
whether it is asbiecha or asbieka is to parse it correctly. Most
people read it wrong, "umitzur devash (pause) asbieka", whereas the
correct reading is umitzur (pause) devash asbieka". It does not mean I
will satiate you from a rock of honey"; it means "I will satiate you
with honey from a rock".
GEK
whishing all a good week
Poppers, Michael
> Another rule I was taught (subjet to being disproved, but accepted by me until such disproof be forthcoming) is that a dagesh chazaq NEVER appears in a final letter. <
All the best from
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager
AMK Judaica
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh
Brooklyn, New York
**************
> To: lei...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 17:25:37 -0500
> Subject: [leining] Re: Dagesh in final kaf
>
Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
> but a mapik is not a dagesh
>
I think the confusion on this point is over the word mapiq. Many think
that it is the dot in the hay that is a mapiq, and mapiq is another
word for dagesh, used when the dagesh is in a final hay. And to some
extent, poeple do refer to the dot as a mapiq. But technically, this
is not correct. The dot is not a mapiq. It is the hay that is mapiq;
it is a mapiq hay meaning that it is sounded as a final consonant,
unlike the far more usual final hay which is a lo-mapiq-hay, and is
not pronounced at all. The dot is merely a siman that this hay is
mapiq.
The dot is needed only when the mapiq hay is a final letter; when
there is a mapiq hay in the middle of a word, there is a schewa
underneath it as a siman for the mapiq hay.
GEK
R. Rich Wolpoe
GEK
« is that when there are two schewa's consecutively, the first is nach and the second is na, EXCEPT when they are the final two letters of the word.»
I Grant you that this would be true for a word like Vayashk which has no dageish in the Quf
The question I have is WRT words like vayeivk which have a dageish at the end.
'Nuff said.
Shalom and Regards, RRW
Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
wrote:
If I understand you correctly, your question is this: we have a rule
that when the last two letters of a word both have schewa's, both are
nach. But we also have a rule that a schewa under a letter with a
dagesh is na. So when these two rules come into conflict, which rule
governs?
The answer is: the first rule overrides the second rule. All such
final schwa's are nach, even when the final letter is bgdkfs and has a
dagesh qal inside. THe samach rule of QOSeM states this explicitly. I
have never heard of anyone who disputes this.
GEK
MG
for a dagesh chazak, not a dagesh kal.
Of course, if there is a dagesh kal in the middle of a word with a
shva underneath, naturally that is always a case of two consecutive
shvas, which we know has the second one na. So the shva is na, but
not because of the dagesh kal.
So there is no conflict of rules. The last letter of a word with a
dagesh kal that has a shva underneath is no different than a shva
under a letter without a dagesh. What would normally cause that shva
to be na is not the dagesh, but the consecutive shvas. And we know
that that does not apply at the end of the word.
FWIW Yeivin brings down shittos that in these words ending in two
shvas that the second shva is indeed na, despite coming at the end of
a word, unless it comes at a major pause. (They believe that the shva
na opens the syllable of the following word - that's why at a major
pause it reverts to nach). Obviously this is not the majority view.
On Dec 11, 11:25 pm, "Giorgies E. Kepipesiom" <kepipes...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Michael Poppers
> ...
> I should restate what I said earlier somewhat -- that the final kaf
> degusha does not seem to come with the "shlemim", i.e. shoroshim that
> retain all of their letters. Such as "Vyishmerecha", or "Asbiecha".
> In "Arekka" (shoresh Resh-Aleph-Heh) the final heh does drop, but we
> generally don't find a dagesh chazak to replace the dropped third root
> letter in nachei lamed verbs.
>
> I believe it is a dagesh kal. As GEK has stated, one cannot have a
> dagesh hazak at the end of a word.
I don't understand how that rule of GEK's holds up against the
"ar'ecca"/"odecca" class of examples. A segol isn't a t'nuah g'dolah,
so how could its syllable stand alone & not end with the "c" of the
word's last letter? Thanks.
All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
MG
Michael Poppers
> dagesh hazak at the end of a word.
> I should restate what I said earlier somewhat -- that the final kaf
> degusha does not seem to come with the "shlemim", i.e. shoroshim that
> In "Arekka" (shoresh Resh-Aleph-Heh) the final heh does drop, but we
> generally don't find a dagesh chazak to replace the dropped third root
> letter in nachei lamed verbs.
> In "VeChunekka" (shoresh Het-Nun-Nun) the middle nun drops and we
> indeed have a dagesh hazak in the remaining nun.
>
chaf related to pausal forms for words
what we sometimes see in such words (that the 3rd root letter is
missing) isn't really even a siman, much less a sibah (esp. as the
dageish is qal)? Thanks, and while I'm at it, here's another example
which seems to be explained only by that [primary] sibah:
"avar'CHEca," the pausal form of "avarech'CHA" (pronounced by some
"avarechCHA," pace REBachur followers :)).
MG
seems to be based on observation.
The dagesh always comes after a segol in a pausal form on words that
take a shva in the non-pausal form, and only in words where the chaf
is a pronoun and not possessive. Maybe that's what you mean by
primary sibah.
However we do find words that have all of these characteristics but
yet do not have the dagesh, so I just added afterwards that perhaps
this only applies to words that are not from the shleimim category,
since we find "vYishmeREcha" without the dagesh at a siluq, and the
other cases with dagesh were nachei lamed or kefulim verbs. Just a
guess.
Avar'CHEKa would seem to contradict this, not support it.
Michael Poppers
> The dagesh always comes after a segol in a pausal form on words that
> take a shva in the non-pausal form, and only in words where the chaf
>
> However we do find words that have all of these characteristics but
> yet do not have the dagesh, so I just added afterwards that perhaps
> this only applies to words that are not from the shleimim category,
> since we find "vYishmeREcha" without the dagesh at a siluq, and the
> other cases with dagesh were nachei lamed or kefulim verbs. Just a
> guess.
>
> Avar'CHEKa would seem to contradict this, not support it.
>
that adding a "not shleimim" criterion isn't appropriate (not only
because it has exceptions like "avar'CHEca" but also because, as noted
before, we observe from TaNaCH that missing root letters are replaced
by a dageish chazaq, not a dageish qal). Perhaps we can add "in the
non-pausal form, the vowel prior to the sh'va is ____," with the blank
portion of this criterion not including the vowel for
"v'yishm'REcha" (IINM, it would be qamatz, as the non-pausal form is
"yishmar'CHA"?) and apparently including segol (e.g. "avarechCHA")?
Thanks.
A gut'n Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom
and all the best from
MG
I never said this dagesh "replaces" anything. I'm simply observing
the places where it appears and trying to discover a governing rule.
Besides, we don't find a dagesh chazak replacing all dropped letters
from every type of root. Witness Nachei lamed heh roots.
>> Perhaps we can add "in the non-pausal form, the vowel prior to the sh'va is ____," with the blank portion of this criterion not including the vowel for "v'yishm'REcha" (IINM, it would be qamatz, as the non-pausal form is "yishmar'CHA"?) and apparently including segol (e.g. "avarechCHA")? <<
Sure, that could work. Does that also work for Arekaa or Asbiecha?
One could also extend the second criterion to include roots that end
with a chaf, so that when it bumps up against the final (pronoun) chaf
we keep the dagesh for ease of pronunciation, and that would explain
AvareCHEkka as well as VYishmeREcha. Open to all suggestions.
AMK Judaica
kol tuv,
ari
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh
Brooklyn, New York
**************
> Subject: [leining] Re: Dagesh in final kaf
MG
be "replacing" a dropped letter. So we all agree.
On Dec 15, 2:21 pm, AMK Judaica <amkjuda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "we don't find a dagesh chazak replacing all dropped letters from every type of root. Witness Nachei lamed heh roots."
>
> i'm not sure if the heh in such verbs is considered a dropped letter
>
> kol tuv,
> ari
>
> Ari Kinsberg
> MA, PharmD, RPh
> Brooklyn, New York
> **************
>
> Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. It's the easiest way to save a child's life.
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:56:07 -0800
> > Subject: [leining] Re: Dagesh in final kaf
> > From: markginsb...@yahoo.com
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/leining?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
Michael Poppers
phenomenon: Gen 49:25 - "v'ya'z'reka".
Also, T'hilim 119:175 - "ushal'leka".
All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
On Dec 15 2011, 12:56 pm, MG <markginsb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>as noted before, we observe from TaNaCH that missing root letters are replaced by a dageish chazaq, not a dageish qal <<
>
>
> >> Perhaps we can add "in the non-pausal form, the vowel prior to the sh'va is ____," with the blank portion of this criterion not including the vowel for "v'yishm'REcha" (IINM, it would be qamatz, as the non-pausal form is "yishmar'CHA"?) and apparently including segol (e.g. "avarechCHA")? <<
>
> Sure, that could work. Does that also work for Arekaa or Asbiecha?
>
> One could also extend the second criterion to include roots that end
> with a chaf, so that when it bumps up against the final (pronoun) chaf
>
> On Dec 15, 11:59 am, Michael Poppers <MPopp...@KayeScholer.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > is a pronoun and not possessive....
>
> > > However we do find words that have all of these characteristics but
> > > other cases withdageshwere nachei lamed or kefulim verbs. Just a
Michael Poppers
letter chaf isn't at all part of the root, much less the last letter
of the root. An example of a missing lamed-heih is in an in-the-near-
future leining: Ex 7:2 - "atzavveka."
P.P.S. Better transliteration of the 2nd example: "us-hal'leka."
Yodan
Getting in late into this discussion and not having time to review prior posts (SLIHA!), did anyone mention that in most cases the dagesh in Kaf (the second person suffix) is because of the loss of NUN ENERGICUM? It’s this extra NUN that is sometimes still seen, especially in poetical language, giving the word an extra emphasis, but often was lost.
-----Original Message-----
From: lei...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:lei...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Michael Poppers
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 12:20 PM
To: leining
Subject: [leining] Re: Dagesh in final kaf
P.S. Both these examples display all their root letters, and the
--