Re: [Hebrew] dagesh qal - special case question

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman:

>>[ 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.

I assume "canonized" is the way the Massoretes did it. And they
consistently made the difference between the naked nismakh form BIRK.AT
(e.g. Gen.28:4) and the forms with personal suffixes BIRK_AT... (e.g.
Gen.27:36). Unfortunately, there is not a single example with a 2nd person
plural suffix (that is, with vowel change from Qamats to Patach before the
two adjacent consonants) in the whole Hebrew Bible.

Helmut Richter

.