Loss of Dagesh

Le Bélier

Senior Member
USA
English/USA

שלום לכולם.


I am familiar with the concept of vowel reduction, but I don't understand why in the second occurrence of the word kova in the following phrase, the dagesh is dropped :


כּוֹבַע שָׁחוֹר וְכוֹבַע חוּם.


Can somebody briefly explain why this is?


תודה רבה
 
  • scriptum

    Senior Member
    Israel / Hebrew, Russian
    If the word begins with two consonants with no vowel between them (or with a shva between them, which is the same thing), the second consonant cannot have a dagesh.
     

    cfu507

    Senior Member
    Hebrew
    There are two kinds of shva: shva nach and shva na.
    At the beginning of a word it shva na
    At the end of a word it shva nach
    When there are too shva, one after the onother, the first one is na and the later is nach.
    בגד כפת are letters that get dagesh when they are at the beginning of a word or after shva nach. That's why we call the rule בגד כפת בראש מילה
    In וכובעthere is shva na under the vav.

     

    Le Bélier

    Senior Member
    USA
    English/USA

    ערב טוב.


    I lost another dagesh and I don't understand why since it doesn't seem to follow either of the rules that Scriptum and cfu507 described. From a recent lesson, these phrases (simplistic as they are!):


    הַאִשָּׁה וְהַיַּלְדָה שׁוֹתוֹת חָלָב.

    הַיַֹלְדָּה שׁוֹתָה חָלָב.


    Why does yalda in the second sentence take a dagesh, but not in the first sentence?

     

    JaiHare

    Senior Member
    English (American)

    ערב טוב.


    I lost another dagesh and I don't understand why since it doesn't seem to follow either of the rules that Scriptum and cfu507 described. From a recent lesson, these phrases (simplistic as they are!):


    הַאִשָּׁה וְהַיַּלְדָה שׁוֹתוֹת חָלָב.

    הַיַֹלְדָּה שׁוֹתָה חָלָב.


    Why does yalda in the second sentence take a dagesh, but not in the first sentence?


    Technically, the dalet should have a dagesh in both situations, as it is found in the Tanakh (יַלְדָּה yaldah). The reason that it is sometimes found without it can be explained in two ways:

    (1) Most modern printers do not distinguish between ד and דּ since they do not have different pronunciations, as is the case with ב and בּ (etc.). Thus, many do not write the dagesh in ד, in ג, or in ת in any position, even initial, though the same rules apply to them in technical orthography as apply to bet, kaf, and peh. For the same reason, many do not print silent sheva: מִשׁפָּחָה instead of מִשְׁפָּחָה. Does this make sense?

    (2) The specific position in which the dalet finds itself in this word lends itself to confusion. Since the word ילדה comes from יֶלֶד yeled, it is unclear whether we should view it as completely divided into the two syllables yal- and dah, or if it should be remembered that it comes from yeled and could be divided as ya- and -ledah. Thus, in the first instance, it is regarded as a type of partially mobile sheva, which is sometimes called a "medial" sheva. Sometimes it will come across in the pointing as if it were vocal (na); other times it will come across as if it were silent (nach).

    In terms of pronunciation, it does not change. It is simply yal-'dah.

    Hope this helps.

    JaiHare
     

    Le Bélier

    Senior Member
    USA
    English/USA
    (1) Most modern printers do not distinguish between ד and דּ since they do not have different pronunciations, as is the case with ב and בּ (etc.). Thus, many do not write the dagesh in ד, in ג, or in ת in any position, even initial, though the same rules apply to them in technical orthography as apply to bet, kaf, and peh. For the same reason, many do not print silent sheva: מִשׁפָּחָה instead of מִשְׁפָּחָה. Does this make sense?

    Absolutely!

    Hope this helps.

    Yes, JaiHare, this is very helpful. I was beginning to think that I wasn't retaining something that I had already learned... presumably. ;)
     

    Medakdek

    New Member
    France
    A letter בגדכפת can take a "light" dagesh only in two circumstances :
    1 - In the beginning of a word
    2 - After a non pronounced sheva
    (I make it simpler than reality, but it's enough for your question)

    Most of the letters (except אהחרע) can take a "heavy" dagesh. Sometimes with no reason. But there are some good reasons :
    3 - The vowel is short and without stress.
    4 - A previous consonnant (generally noun) has been removed

    According to these rules the fact that the dagesh is present or not can change with the context.
    With the word alone, you put a "light" dagesh according to the first rule.
    כּובע

    With a vav (and) a beth (in) a caf (like) a lamed (to) in the beginning, the sheva is pronounced, and none of the first two rules apply.
    You remove the light dagesh.
    וְכובע
    בְכובע
    כְכובע

    With an article alone, or under a beth, caf, lamed, the third rule applies. This is a heavy dagesh, meaning that you should double the kaf (hak-kova)
    הַּכּובע
    בַּכּובע
    כַּכּובע
    לַכּובע

    With a mem, third and fourth rules apply (noun disappearing from מן כובע) and you have a heavy dagesh :
    מִכּובע

    If you put a vav AND a beth, the vav becomes a shourouq. The sheva under the beth becomes non-pronounced, because this kind of shourouq is seen as short.
    But an unwritten rule says that in these case, the following letter doesn't take a dagesh (many case in the bible, ex : Gen 1-26 ouv-khol)
    וּבְכובע

    In the bible 2 ילדה are with a dagesh in the daleth. These are nouns (girls). The yod bear a short vowel (patah), so the sheva under the daleth is not pronounced, and the second rule applies.

    In the bible, you have about 40 ילדה without dagesh in the daleth. These are verbs (she gave birth). The yod bears a long vowel (qamatz with a secondary stress or meteg), so the sheva under the lamed is pronounced.
    None of the 4 rules applies, and you don't need any dagesh in the daleth.

    All this rule are simplified and are explained in much more details on my french speaking site ( about dikdouk, but I can't add the adress, so ask to google ).

    I'm afraid that modern israelis, who speak a tongue that really looks like hebrew, don't care about all these rules. Which are used, and which are not, I don't know.
     

    scriptum

    Senior Member
    Israel / Hebrew, Russian
    If you put a vav AND a beth, the vav becomes a shourouq. The sheva under the beth becomes non-pronounced, because this kind of shourouq is seen as short.
    But an unwritten rule says that in these case, the following letter doesn't take a dagesh (many case in the bible, ex : Gen 1-26 ouv-khol)
    וּבְכובע
    Hello Medakdek,
    I must confess I have never heard about such an unwritten rule. Could you cite an authority?
    this kind of shourouq is seen as short: by whom, and on what ground?
    To the best of my understanding, the shva is a shva na here (u-ve-khol), and (in accordance with a well-written rule) the following letter cannot take a dagesh.

    I'm afraid that modern israelis, who speak a tongue that really looks like hebrew, don't care about all these rules. Which are used, and which are not, I don't know.
    Since in modern Hebrew there is neither a difference between long and short vowels, nor a difference between single and double consonants, these rules simply cannot be applied.
     

    Medakdek

    New Member
    France
    We are far from the original question.

    The fact that the sheva is nah is not an unwritten rule.

    1° ) I have 2 tiqqun qoreim, one ashkénazic (simanim), the other one sephardic (ish matsliah) , that have a graphical distinction between both sheva, and both book put it nah (ouv-khol , gen. I 26).

    2°) In the simanim (ashkénazic), there is a book "מסורת הקריאה" with כללי דקדוק הקריאה compiled by יהודא ליב מרדכי שיסלאוויץ משקלאוו
    In כלל ג - דיני שוא נע ונח chapter ז they explain that a shourouk+consonnant+sheva in the beginning of a word implied a sheva nah (prou ofrou in bereshit is given in example).
    BUT when there is a meteg under the vav, the sheva is na'.
    Exemple : ובשכבך in the shema.
    Whatever, when you go in the tiqqun itself, the sheva is written as nah (the author is different).

    3°) Since I learned dikdouk, this point has always been taught to me as a basic law of dikdouk, that nobody contests. And this fits what I here in the liturgy. It seems that you can check in in piyyoutim where the length of syllabs matter, but I have no references for the moment.

    What I called unwritten law is the fact that there is no dagesh after, but you don't need rule.You have the thora text (if you agree that the sheva is nah).
     

    Mordekhai

    New Member
    Brazil. Portuguese-Hebrew-Ladino
    Hi dear

    One of the cause of the confusion is that the letter Vav is no actually vav, but waw, so this lead people to misunderstand some rules.

    Daghesh has the traditional rule of doubling the letter, like in Turkish dükkan, pronounces DÜK-kan and sounding DÜKan. Compare with shada in Arabic.

    In you example, Hebrew grammar says that after a vocal shewá, the lettersבגכפת become rafé, ie., not doubled.

    Modern Hebrew, however, is very deeply influenced by European structure, as we know the stress at the penultima where grammar says at the ultima. mispronunciation of ר total confusion between ח e כ. The same confusion with א e ע . The letter ק being totally uncharacterized. By the way, the shewá is not a letter or vowel but an auxiliary.

    Traditional ruling are that the letter BET is always sounding B, as brought in the Talmud, about the Qeriat Shemá` recitation, where one MUST say éseb besadekhá. The same kanáf Fetíl, indicating that this might be the same as for the letter PE. If they sounded different, there were no concerns about them. However, the PE is less evident when your get examples from the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern communities. Bet was unpronounced correctly in the State of Israel, but was considered low-class Hebrew by the European rulers, which also made the scholar system, imperatively with European influence.

    There is not a certainty that the letter KAF is khaf or the way that is double pronouced (KAF/KHAF).

    Shewá is ALWAYS pronounced at the beginning and in different cases, assimilates the vowel just after.

    Thus, Israeli pronunciations like zman, sfarim, glída, kípa, brit are totally incorrect, and must be articulated: zemán, sefarím, gelidá, kipá, berít. Even in such a case: baZemán and not bazmán.

    Israeli Hebrew sounds much more like French than Arabic, the last case being the most plausible for Semitic language.

    תזכה לשנים רבות
     

    scriptum

    Senior Member
    Israel / Hebrew, Russian
    Medakdek and Mordekhai, thank you for the very interesting lesson. I am much impressed by your expertise.
     

    JaiHare

    Senior Member
    English (American)
    Hi dear

    One of the cause of the confusion is that the letter Vav is no actually vav, but waw, so this lead people to misunderstand some rules.

    Daghesh has the traditional rule of doubling the letter, like in Turkish dükkan, pronounces DÜK-kan and sounding DÜKan. Compare with shada in Arabic.

    In you example, Hebrew grammar says that after a vocal shewá, the lettersבגכפת become rafé, ie., not doubled.

    Modern Hebrew, however, is very deeply influenced by European structure, as we know the stress at the penultima where grammar says at the ultima. mispronunciation of ר total confusion between ח e כ. The same confusion with א e ע . The letter ק being totally uncharacterized. By the way, the shewá is not a letter or vowel but an auxiliary.

    Traditional ruling are that the letter BET is always sounding B, as brought in the Talmud, about the Qeriat Shemá` recitation, where one MUST say éseb besadekhá. The same kanáf Fetíl, indicating that this might be the same as for the letter PE. If they sounded different, there were no concerns about them. However, the PE is less evident when your get examples from the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern communities. Bet was unpronounced correctly in the State of Israel, but was considered low-class Hebrew by the European rulers, which also made the scholar system, imperatively with European influence.

    There is not a certainty that the letter KAF is khaf or the way that is double pronouced (KAF/KHAF).

    Shewá is ALWAYS pronounced at the beginning and in different cases, assimilates the vowel just after.

    Thus, Israeli pronunciations like zman, sfarim, glída, kípa, brit are totally incorrect, and must be articulated: zemán, sefarím, gelidá, kipá, berít. Even in such a case: baZemán and not bazmán.

    Israeli Hebrew sounds much more like French than Arabic, the last case being the most plausible for Semitic language.

    תזכה לשנים רבות

    In light of what you're saying, where did the ספר יצירה come up with the idea of the seven doubles (אותיות כפולות)? According to this writing, the letters ב ג ד כ פ ר ת all have double sounds. I don't know what the second sound of ר might be, but it is listed. Do you think that the ספר יצירה was written later, after the double sound was given to these letters? I assume that you are saying that the Hebrew of the Massoretic tradition is different from the Hebrew that was spoken during the Second Temple Period. Do you mind commenting on this?

    Thanks,
    Jaihare
     

    Medakdek

    New Member
    France
    The Ish Matsliah mention 7 letters that have 2 pronounciations, but he adds that the prononciation of rech refouia is lost (forgotten, נשכח זכרו). Later on some other letters were "lost" by some communities.

    There are 17 resh with dagesh in the tanakh and all of them in a situation of dagesh hazaq (7 are a first letters, but are in situation of dahiq or ate merahiq).

    So, even if I don't have information about the time of the "loss" of resh refouia, I suppose that it was before the massoretes translated there oral tradition into a system of sign.

    By the way, the 4 alef with dagesh in the tanakh also come in situation of dagesh hazaq.

    I'm really interested in precisions about :
    - The lost of the resh refouia (why, when)
    - The pronounciation of doubled alef and resh.
    Thanks.
     

    Mordekhai

    New Member
    Brazil. Portuguese-Hebrew-Ladino
    Shalom `Alekhém,

    I apologize Medaqdeq for my delay.

    Here are the references for Eseb BeSadekhá

    It's said in Talmud Bablí, M. Berakhot, Féreq Hayá Qiré' baTorá:

    Tané Rab `Obadiá in front of Rabbá: weLimadetém (from qeriát Shemá`) (meaning) that you studies must be TAM (limudékha tam). That you must give a space between the words (debaqím, meaning geminated or glued). And Rabbá answers after him: Like these: `al lebabekhá, `al lebebekhém... `eseb besadekhá, we'abadetém meherá, hak-kanáf fetíl... The examples tell us theta Bet and F sounds are to be said B and F, because it's self evident that `ésev besadekhá and kanáf petíl are totally audable as different sounds.


    About 'alafín and `ayinín, it comes in M. Meguilá,Féreq haQoré et haMeguilá:

    It's also taught: One does nor allow to "get down in front of tebá- i.e, to be Shelíah Sibúr), neither Anshé Bet She'án (men from Bet She'án), nor Anshé Bet Hefá and nor Anshé Bet Tibe`onín (Tabe`onín), because the say la'Alafín `aynín and le`Aynín 'alafín.

    As for the other letters, it's said in M. `Erubín, F. Kesád me`aberín et ha`arím, based on teh fact that is said there: The Sons of Yahudá (people of this region) are strict about their pronunciation, against the fact of The Sons of Galíl were not. The First kept theit Torah studies, as the second did not.

    Here is:

    A Galilean come and said:- Amar, who has? He was asked: - Drunken Galilean, do you mean a donkey-hamár (חמר) to ride on or wine-hamár (חמר) to drink? Do you mean a lamb-Imár (אמר) to slaughter or wool-`amár (עמר) to wear?


    As for the Resh, i guess is only due to certain circunstances. Maybe, a sofér reference. It may also be like the Spanish words Pero and Perro. I do not see any gramatical reason for alef medugueshet. I also find its pure exegetical or scribal issue.
     

    clevermizo

    Senior Member
    English (USA), Spanish
    This is a good article on the status of the pronunciations of resh:


    The Nature of Resh in Tiberian Hebrew, E. J. Revell, AJS Review, Vol. 6, 1981 (1981), pp. 125-136

    This is copyrighted so I cannot post a link to it. I have the article on my computer for personal use; you may communicate with me by private message about it if it interests you.
     

    Mordekhai

    New Member
    Brazil. Portuguese-Hebrew-Ladino
    In my opinion, it has more to do with the sort of letter before and after the Resh. In some casa, it seem to be to not lead to a confusion with the verb or word in which the Resh is, in har-reitém.

    Thaks for the article's mention.

    Shabbat Shalom
     

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    Also, the following letters usually lose their דָּגֵשׁ‎ when they have a שְׁוָא‎:

    ס
    שׂ
    שׁ‎
    ק
    נ
    מ
    ל
    ו
    י

    Our professor had a useful mnemonic device for them: "skin 'em alive".
     
    Last edited:

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    Yes, but usually. However, there is at least one word where for some no reason the "skin 'em alive" rule never applies: המלכים 'kings'. You never drop the דָּגֵשׁ‎ from the מ. I have no idea why.
     
    Last edited:

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    I don't think it's true that it's "usually" the case. It's seems to be not so predictable.

    For מ with the definite article the rule seems to usually be this: If the מ is the participle prefix, then the dagesh is dropped, otherwise it is not dropped. This explains the המלכים case.

    For other letters, no such rule can be made.
     

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    Thanks, Drink! By the way, is it true that if the previous word ends in a vowel, a begedkepet letter at the beginning of the next word will lose its דגש? For example,

    בנו בית banu vayit 'They built a house.'
     

    Drink

    Senior Member
    English - New England, Russian - Moscow
    It depends on a lot of things, like stress placement and cantillation marks. So in short: sometimes yes, sometimes no.
     
    Top