Some limit the use of the Deḥîq to the closest connexion of a monosyllable with a following Begadkephath. However, it also applies to cases like לְכָה־נָּא Nu 226; לֻֽקֳחָה־זֹּאֹת Gn 223; יְצַוֶּה־לָּךְ ψ 9111; and even with Rêš, מַֽעֲנֶה־רַּךְ Pr 151; וּמִֽשְׁנֶה־כֶּ֫סֶף Gn 4315. In all these examples the tone, were it not for the Maqqēph, would be on the ultima of the first word.
[d] Rem. 1. When זֶה this has Maqqēph after it, a Dageš forte conj. always follows, even if the next word is neither a monosyllable nor has the tone on the initial syllable; thus not only in וְזֶה־שְּׁמוֹ Jer 236, but also in וְזֶה־פִּרְיָהּ Nu 1327, 1 Ch 221. In הִנֶּה֣ נָּאֽ־ Gn 192 (where Maqqēph is represented by a conjunctive accent, § 9 u, 1 c, and § 16 b), the Seghôl coincides with the secondary tone-syllable. On the origin of Dag. f. conj. after מַה־ (for מָה) what?, see § 37 b, c.
[e] 2. Such cases as גָאֹ֣ה גָּאָ֫ה Ex 151.21, the 2nd כָּמֹ֖כָה in ver. 11, גָּאָ֑לְתָּ ver. 13, כָּאָ֑בֶן ver. 16, do not belong here. In these the Dageš can only be intended for Dag. lene, see § 21 d.
[f] (2) In the first letter of a monosyllable, or of a word with the tone on the first syllable after a closely connected milʿêl ending in ־ָה or ־ֶה. Such a milʿêl is called by the Jewish grammarians אָתֵי מֵרֽ͏ַחִיק (Aram.=Heb. אֹתֶה מֵֽרָחוֹק) veniens e longinquo (in respect of the tone). The attraction of the following tone-syllable by Dageš forte conj. is here also due to the exigencies of rhythm, e.g. שָׁבִ֫יתָ שֶּׁ֫בִי ψ 6819; הוֹשִׁ֫יעָה נָּא ψ 11825 (so ed. Mant., but Ginsburg and Kittel הֽוֹשִׁיעָ֫ה נָּא); הִרְחִ֫יבָה שְּׁאוֹל Is 514; אַ֫רְצָה כְּנַ֫עַן Gn 1131. The Milʿêl may, however, also be due to a subsequent retraction of the tone (nāsôg ʾaḥôr, § 29 e), as in ע֫שֶֹׁה פְּרִי Gn 111.—The prefixes בְ, כְ, לְ and וְ alone do not take a Dageš in this case, except in לְךָ, always, and לְּלַיְלָה ψ 193. Such forms as הִשָּׁ֫בְעָה לִּי Gn 2123, מָ֣לְאָה שֹּֽׁחַד ψ 2610, רָ֣חֲקָה מֶּֽנִּי Jb 2116, and even נַ֣עַמְדָה יָּ֑חַד Is 508 (i.e. the cases where the tone is thrown back from the ultima on to the syllable which otherwise would have Metheg), are likewise regarded as milʿêl. On the other hand, e.g. חָ֣רָה לָךְ Gn 46, not לָּךְ since the first ā of חָרָה could not have Metheg. When words are closely united by Maqqēph the same rules apply as above, except that in the first word Metheg, in the secondary tone, takes the place of the accent, cf. עֽשֶֹׁה־פְּרִי Gn 112; הַגִּֽידָה־נָּא Gn 3230, &c. Finally, the Dageš is used when the attracted word does not begin with the principal tone, but with a syllable having Metheg, הֵ֣מָּה יִּֽירְשׁ֫וּ ψ 379; אֵ֣לֶּה יַּֽעֲקֹ֫ב Is 4421; עָשִׂ֫יתָ קְּעָֽרֹתָיו Ex 2529, provided that the second word does not begin with a Begadkephath letter (hence e.g. אֵ֣לֶּה תֽוֹלְדוֹת Gn 24).
[g] Rem. Such cases as קָּנֶ֨ךָ Dt 326, and כָּשִׂ֫יתָ 3215, and נָּעוֹת (so Baer, but not ed. Mant., &c.) 1 S 113 are therefore anomalous; also, because beginning with
