# Loss of Dagesh



## Le Bélier

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

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.


----------



## Le Bélier

בסדר.  זה קל מספיק לזכור. תודה שוב.
​


----------



## cfu507

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

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

Le Bélier said:


> 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

JaiHare said:


> (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!  



JaiHare said:


> 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

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

Medakdek said:


> 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.



Medakdek said:


> 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

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

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 ése*b* *b*esadekhá. The same kaná*f* *F*etíl, 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

Medakdek and Mordekhai, thank you for the very interesting lesson. I am much impressed by your expertise.


----------



## JaiHare

Mordekhai said:


> 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 ése*b* *b*esadekhá. The same kaná*f* *F*etíl, 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

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

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: `a*l l*ebabekhá, `a*l l*ebebekhém... `ese*b b*esadekhá, we'abadeté*m m*eherá, hak-kaná*f f*etíl... 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 Pe*r*o and Pe*rr*o. I do not see any gramatical reason for alef medugueshet. I also find its pure exegetical or scribal  issue.


----------



## clevermizo

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

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

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".


----------



## Drink

Not always.


----------



## Ali Smith

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.


----------



## Drink

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

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

It depends on a lot of things, like stress placement and cantillation marks. So in short: sometimes yes, sometimes no.


----------



## JAN SHAR

I understand why the beged-kefet letters never lose their dagesh even when they have a schwa: loss of it would result in a change in their pronunciation. But what about צ and ט and ז? Why don't they lose the dagesh when they have a schwa?


----------



## Drink

You've got it backwards.

The _general_ rule is that letters do _not_ lose their dagesh chazaq when they have a shwa.

The letters and circumstances under which the dagesh chazaq is dropped with shwa are the _exceptions_.


----------

