Re: [Hebrew] dagesh qal - special case question

>[ re BIRK.AT- (BIRKAT-) vs. BIRK_AT- (BIRXAT-) ]
>
>Does this reasoning hold water?

No.

The word BIRK.AT- is actually a canonized error. It should be
BIRK_AT, but, on fallacious analogy with the segholates (MELEK_ -->
MALK.AT-, e.g.) people started using the wrong BIRK.AT. Because that
word is so common (BIRK.AT HAMAZON etc.), the wrong form became the
"right" form.

The proper reasoning is that DAGESH KAL comes only after a SHVA in the
base form of the word, where the base form of the word is the:

- singular
- masculine, if both masculine and feminine forms mean the same thing
- 3rd person, for verbs
- also the infinitive, for verbs

For segholates the base form is the construct (SMIXUT).

So because the base form is BRAK_A [BRAXA], the construct doesn't get
a dagesh (except in error). By contrast, in MALKA, because MELEK_
(MELEX) is a segholate, the construct MALK- is the base form, and does
get a dagesh.

Similarly, the infinitive "to write" is LIXT.OV (dagesh in the Taf),
because the infinitive is the base form, while "by writing" BIXT_OV
has no dagesh, because it comes from KT_OV, which has no dagesh.

In the same vein, HU KATAB_ and HI KATB_A [KATVA]. The feminine
doesn't get a dagesh in the Bet because the masculine is the base
form.

-Joel Hoffman
http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman
.

Loading