6

I'm not so clear on the use of the dagesh as a point of definition -- I understand some fo the pronunciation issues but not all of them either so I would appreciate any help here.

I recall learning years ago that a dagesh in a final hei means two things -- 1) that the letter is pronounced in an aspirated way, and 2) that it refers to possessive.

I am wrestling with the second notion. There seem to be many different situations where the dagesh is found -- in some, the hei has no vowel but follows a letter with a kamatz (as in the second line of eishet chayil "batach baH lev ba'laH" and this seems to show the possessive in 2 ways:

baH = "in her" ba'laH = "her husband" (other words in the poem, like kapaH and neiraH seem to work like this as well).

However, in the rosh hashana davening, we say the word "vayigbaH" which has a hei following a patach and having a dagesh -- with no possessive indicated.

Even more confusing, there is also the case where the dagesh is in a hei which HAS a nikkud. The one that really jumps out at me is the word "elo-Ha" (or is it "elo-aH). In the rosh hashana davening, we say "v'ein elo-Ha mibal'adecha" which is not possessive, while on Yom Kippur, we say "v'al kulam, elo-Ha slichot" which means "the god OF" or "the god to whom belongs forgiveness."

So I don't see any consistency in the use of dagesh there in terms of possession and also meaning. This leads to having the word "elo-Ha" mean both god and god's. Is that accurate? does the dagesh have some other use or rule that I can use to understand why it would or would not appear?

Improve this question
1
  • It’s indeed Elo-wah, not Elo-ha.
    – Qwertrl
    Commented Oct 1 at 15:20

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
6

The grammatical function of the mapiq (which can occur with an alef as well as a he) is to indicate that the letter is a consonant. (The alternative is that the letter is mater lectionis indicating a particular vowel.) Whether a he-mapiq indicates possessive is a matter of context. The Divine name yod-he, for instance, is always spelled with a mapiq, possessive or not. (By the way, if the he has a patach, it is -aH—never -Ha—with or without a mapiq.)

When not used in the Divine name, it's usually used to indicate feminine possessive. That's what I would assume unless the context required otherwise.

Improve this answer
5
  • 1
    Just to emphasize, that generally such a marker is not necessary because when the letter has a vowel mark (even a shwa), it is clearly consonantal. Only in the rare case when it does not have a vowel and is still consonantal is the extra mark required. The case of a furtive patach (see also here) is unique because while the letter appears to have a vowel, the vowel is really under an imaginary previous letter, so the mappiq is still necessary.
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 2:15
  • Commenting to note that the patach that makes the pronunciation -aH is called a "patach genuvah" ("stolen" by the previous letter), and serves the same function as a patach under a final ח (e.g. miz-bei-ach). Monica is correct regarding pronunciation of the mapik hei.
    – Fred
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 3:27
  • @Fred patach ganuv == furtive patach
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 3:54
  • @DoubleAA Source for the notion that the name is an allusion to the patach being stolen by the previous letter.
    – Fred
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 7:33
  • @Fred - Nice article link. The Sephardic pronunciation sort of suggests that what was stolen is not the patach from the previous letter, but the letter that the patach belongs to. It also has a nice example of a he-mapiq that is not feminine possessive.
    – Ted Hopp
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 16:14
3

That's not a dageish, though it's a logical mistake to make because it looks exactly like one. That's called a mapik and occurs in a hei at the end of a word. It almost always means feminine possessive, though it also appears in the short divine name beginning with yud. It also appears that you have found some examples of non-feminine possessive; "elo-aH s'lichot" is, most accurately, "God of forgiveness", which isn't possessive per se but uses the noun-chain construct (the implicit "of"). (And it's not feminine either, of course.)

The mapik is not a vowel, so I guess there's nothing to preclude that hei from also having a vowel. (Until you pointed it out I'd never thought about that.)

I was taught that the mapik should be pronounced slightly aspirated (a release of air after the preceding syllable).

Improve this answer
10
  • ok, I'm good with mapik -- but can the word elo-Ha be both fem possessive and something else depending on the mapik?
    – rosends
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 0:58
  • Oh right; I got so distracted by the mapik that I didn't answer the rest of your question. I can only offer a partial answer there; will edit.
    – Monica Cellio
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 1:02
  • 2
    @Dan - The grammatical function of the mapik (which can occur with an alef as well as a he) is to indicate that the letter is a consonant. (The alternative is that the letter is matres lectionis indicating a particular vowel.) Whether a he-mapik indicates possessive is a matter of context. The Divine name yod-he, for instance, is always spelled with a mapik, possessive or not. (By the way, if the he has a patach, it is aH, with or without a mapik.)
    – Ted Hopp
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 1:06
  • 1
    @TedHopp, that sounds like an answer (and better than mine).
    – Monica Cellio
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 1:07
  • 2
    @Dan, Also, it's not Elo-Ha. It's Elo-aH. Just had to point that out bc it was driving me nuts. Shanah Tovah, though!
    – Seth J
    Commented Sep 19, 2012 at 1:17
0

Some words just end with a dotted heh, despite not meaning "her" -- "eloha" is one; "nogaH" (shine) is another.

Improve this answer
3
  • Eloha isn't a word.
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Mar 30, 2016 at 19:27
  • @DoubleAA yes thank you, it's Elo-aH. (Patach genuva.) I was trying to reply to the way it was (imprecisely) phrased in the question.
    – Shalom
    Commented Mar 31, 2016 at 0:21
  • In the question he said "'elo-Ha' (or is it 'elo-aH)". No need to further propagate people not saying a name of God when they mean to.
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Mar 31, 2016 at 0:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .