[Mesorah] ham'chadesh, ham'vorach, ...

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 03:34:10PM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote:
: > dalet: under an os *D*egushah (e.g. dab'ru) <

: To be more explicit, perhaps the rule should be:
: D: under an os d'gushah which would be pronounced even if it didn't have a
: dageish (to the exclusion of an eim haq'riyah [anyone say "haqriyah"? :)]
: that is mappiq only because of its dageish).

I actually thought of that. However, I thought the rule was clear as is,
as we call a mappiq hei a mappiq hei, not a hei degushah. Even though
we use the same symbol.

IOW, it a mappiq a dageish, in anything but an arbitrary visualization
sense?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha