A.D. Riddle Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 In HMT-W4 and in BHS, Genesis 2:10 begins וְנָהָרּ, with a dagesh in the resh. I do not know if this is an error to report, or if there is some reason behind it. It does not appear in BHQ, and there is no text-critical note for it in either BHS or BHQ. Does anyone know the story behind this? A.D. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.D. Riddle Posted August 31, 2021 Author Share Posted August 31, 2021 My paper copy of BHS does not have the dagesh. So is this an error? A.D. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristin Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 Hi @A.D. Riddle, I might be wrong, but I think it is supposed to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael J. Bolesta Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 I see it in HMT-W4, but not in BHS-T, BHS ETCBC, HB Anderson-Forbes, or BHQ. Being a guttural, it should not take a dagesh, and wonder if it is something else (like a mappiq in the letter ה), but I am a neophyte, so perhaps someone with more knowledge will chime in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Holmstedt Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 It's there in the Leningrad. See below. It's not addressed in either GKC or JM. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.D. Riddle Posted September 1, 2021 Author Share Posted September 1, 2021 When I said it appears in BHS, that would be BHS-W4, not BHS-T. You are right—it is not in BHS-T. (Can someone please remind me what BHS-W4 is?) Thank you for the image. If it's in Leningrad, then I suppose they should have included it in BHQ, since BHQ seeks to be a diplomatic presentation of Leningrad. I do not have a paper copy of BHQ Genesis to check if it is in the printed edition. A.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.D. Riddle Posted September 1, 2021 Author Share Posted September 1, 2021 This page lists several other instances of "unexpected dagesh." I do not know if all of these appear in Leningrad, BHS, BHQ, etc. https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/natlang/hebrew/hebrew_bible.html A.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allison Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 (edited) 9 hours ago, A.D. Riddle said: When I said it appears in BHS, that would be BHS-W4, not BHS-T. You are right—it is not in BHS-T. (Can someone please remind me what BHS-W4 is?) The BHS-W4 was the predecessor of our HMT-W4. The BHS-W4 is no longer updated, but there is a free upgrade to the HMT-W4 for all BHS-W4 owners. Edited September 1, 2021 by Mark Allison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iconoclaste Posted October 5, 2021 Share Posted October 5, 2021 (edited) On 8/31/2021 at 6:52 PM, A.D. Riddle said: This page lists several other instances of "unexpected dagesh." I do not know if all of these appear in Leningrad, BHS, BHQ, etc. https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/natlang/hebrew/hebrew_bible.html A.D. Interesting. I was only aware of the three in Proverbs and Ezekiel since J&M's grammar mentions them. at §23a. Shlomo Bertonov pronounces the qametz before them as chatuf, which indicates that these dagesh were treated as real (since they close the syllable and hence the qametz must be a qametz chatuf). In Ezekiel 16:4 the dagesh is part of the pual identifiers. I wonder why BHS skipped over the one in Genesis 2:10? Edited October 5, 2021 by Iconoclaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Denckla Posted November 16, 2021 Share Posted November 16, 2021 All we can say, particularly from only black-and-white images of the LC, is there is a dagesh-like mark in the resh. This mark was not necessarily made by the niqqud scribe. Indeed, looking at line 1 of column 3 of the color image, the interpretation of this mark as dagesh seems unlikely. It is more likely a speck on the vellum: It is perhaps interesting to note that without the color image, and without context (i.e. without knowledge of the "grammar" of cantillation) we might be tempted to interpret the two marks above the nun as zaqef qatan! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Denckla Posted November 16, 2021 Share Posted November 16, 2021 This dagesh likely stems from the WLC. Indeed it is highlighted in the WLC documentation: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Denckla Posted November 16, 2021 Share Posted November 16, 2021 See the UXLC note on venahar in 2:10. The dagesh was removed from the resh in UXLC release 1.2 (the 2021.04.01 change set). Here is the change record. This change was suggested by Alexander Adler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Denckla Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 Here is a better link to the UXLC change record for Change 2020.12.29-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.D. Riddle Posted December 5, 2021 Author Share Posted December 5, 2021 Thank you, Benjamin. This is excellent. A.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now