From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


No mention of Gimmel without daghesh? Ghimmel is pronounced by most non-Ashkenazic communities, and yet its not mentioned


Looking up mapiq in wikipedia redirects you to dagesh, however, the only mention of mapiq on the dagesh page is that it looks like dagesh, but has a completly different phonetic function.

Dagesh Kal; Dagesh Hazzak?[edit]

The article mentions Dagesh Kal and Dagesh Hazzek without saying what they are. There should at least be a short 'definition' of what they are and how they relate to Dagesh. -- 21:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


The mappik is a dot that looks like a dagesh. It is inserted in a final heh to indicate that the letter is pronounced as a consonant, even though it is found at the end of a word. The mappik also indicates that the heh is part of the root of the word. Source: Jacobson, Chanting the Hebrew Bible, pp. 295-6.

Since mappiq and dagesh are quite distinct, and merely visually identical, I see no reason to give details of mappiq in this article – the link alone should suffice. Also worth mentioning the (again visually identical) piercing that turns a vav into a shuruq. Vilĉjo 16:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, contrary to what Jacobson reportedly indicates above, the primary use of mapiq is in the feminine third-person possessive, as in, for example achah, "her brother", where the final h has a mapiq. Tomertalk 04:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You are correct and Jacobson is correct. There is no contradiction. Although indistinguishable for most modern speakers or readers of Hebrew, the mappiq is placed in the word-final He in the third-person feminine singular possessive to indicate that the letter is pronounced as a consonant. Today such a pronunciation only occurs in religious contexts, by careful readers of the scriptures. Shiafishman (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Just because they have different semantics doesn't mean it doesn't bear mention. Confusion between a mapiq and a Dagesh is common, and so the distinction is worth mention. Vonfraginoff 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

rules for dagesh?[edit]

Anybody want to take a stab at the rules for dagesh insertion, or perhaps Hebrew nikud rules in general? I can barely remember my lessons on this subject, and don't have a reference grammar handy Vonfraginoff 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Suggest that we reorder the consonants and mention the hebrew mnemonics, e.g. בגדכפת - Vonfraginoff 21:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Matres lectionis[edit]

What does this have to do with the dagesh? FilipeS 21:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

True, atually, all following sections don't belong here:
  • 4 Pronunciation of modern Israeli Hebrew
  • 4.1 Matres lectionis
  • 4.2 Loanwords
and 4.3 Same pronunciation is maybe relevant concerning ב / ו, ח / כ, ת / ט, ק / כּ. Dan Pelleg 14:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm placing the above sections in remark tags (<!-- ... -->), if someone thinks they would fit somewhere else, please move them there. Dan Pelleg 22:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Peh Sofit[edit]

Hi don't know how to edit the table in the beginning but someone should edit in that there exists a peh sofit with a dagesh in proverbs 30:6 It says here in the footnote that kaf sofit is rare, but this is rarer! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Merging Begadkefat into "Dagesh kal"[edit]

The Begadkefat article describs what "Dagesh kal" does. For that reason i think Begadkefat should be merged into this article.--EsB (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

no Disagree – It also:
  1. covers the orthography more generally, i.e., explains also the effect of dagesh ẖazaq on these letters, refers to rafe, and accounts for modern Hebrew cases of dagesh which can't be standardly defined as either "qal" or "ẖazaq" (e.g. "רֶכֶּז" or "לֶבֶּן")
  2. more generally describes the "phenomenon of spirantization ... [in] Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic ... [and] similar cases of spirantization of post-vocalic plosives in other languages",
  3. provides an account of the historical change in begadkefat spirantization as a verbal phenomenon, independent of the written diacritic "dagesh".
Dan 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
no Disagree The begadkephat is a specific and detailed enough case of dagesh to necessitate its own article explaining spirantization and the history of pronunciation.

Commented-out content after Rafe section[edit]

There is a large amount of content commented out right after the Rafe section. It should be looked through to see what should be uncommented and what should be removed. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 11:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


The Meaning section is very one-sided. It needs some more sources. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 11:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. It's based on a single source, which calls itself "amateur". --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation section too short?[edit]

There has been an editorial comment in the text of the article for months which I am now moving here, where it belongs. The complaint was that the pronunciation section is much too short "and does not include all the details of the Beged Kefeth rules, nor does it include Temani versions." Tracy Hall (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)