1 SHAMASH.ORG /usr/www/wwwhc/listserv/archives/heblang April 2000
2 78 26_RE: qawdashim or qadashim?21_Rosenfelder, Yehezkel36_Yehezkel_Rosenfelder@icominfosys.com30_Sun, 9 Apr 2000 10:22:38 +0200435_iso-8859-1 "P'litat kulmos" would undermine the whole basis of using the Bible as THE source for Hebrew Grammar -- something which most (if not all) authorities did. If I am not mistaken, nobody claims a dagesh dalet in any appearance of kodesh etc. I pointed out at the start of this discussion, that the hataf DOES appear when the word is prefixed by hey or bachla"m. A different interesting example is et-kodashav (Num 5, 10). [...]
81 24 12_word classes13_Monica Devens17_mdevens@yahoo.com36_Sun, 9 Apr 2000 14:05:44 -0700 (PDT)375_us-ascii As I was preparing next week's Torah reading, it occurred to me that /semol/-/semali/ "left" is another pair similar to /rosh/-/rashim/. Here, too, we presumably have an original /a/ vowel followed by an aleph where the aleph lost its consonantal value, resulting in a long /a/, which eventually became /o/ in stressed position, but not in unstressed position. [...]
106 56 20_Varied terminologies11_Avi Tuchman15_avi@bigfoot.com31_Sun, 09 Apr 2000 22:21:20 -0400667_us-ascii For several years I've been pondering a series of questions, and have been unable to answer them for myself. I'm hoping that this group can shed some light on the why's and wherefore's for the terminologies used.<br><br>The first question relates to the possible rules that define the specific uses of asher and its shortened (predominant) form, she. In particular, consider the morning brachot, although the usages are found in many broader contexts. The first bracha uses the terminology "asher nosan lasechvi...," followed by "she'asa li....," "shelo osani..." It's not a simple "general vs particular" distinction, witness "she'hakol ni'h'ye..." or [...]
163 93 26_RE: qawdashim or qadashim?0_15_rturkel@cas.org36_Sun, 9 Apr 2000 22:44:14 -0400 (EDT)513_- Shavu`a tov.<br><br>Yehezkel Rosenfelder <Yehezkel_Rosenfelder@icominfosys.com> wrote:<br><br>>"P'litat kulmos" would undermine the whole basis of using the Bible as >THE source for Hebrew Grammar -- something which most (if not all) >authorities did. If I am not mistaken, nobody claims a dagesh dalet in >any appearance of kodesh etc.<br><br>Quite so. My comment was more a shot in the dark rather than a well thought-out suggestion. And no, there's no reason whatsoever for a dalet degusha in "qodesh." [...]