[b-hebrew] Isaiah 53: bruises?
Harold R. Holmyard III
hholmyard at ont.com
Mon May 24 08:59:12 EDT 2004
>Would you remind me of ANY instance when the transformations you describe
>pushed out dagesh hazak?
HH: I don't know how to research such a thing without considerable
effort. Not that many words have alternative spellings, and then I
would have to research why the alternative spellings were used. I
told you I did not understand exactly why the alternative spelling
was used here, and I gave what I felt might be possible reasons.
Perhaps the alternative spelling was used for another reason
altogether. But the fact is that the lexicons and commentaries accept
that this was an alternative spelling for a word meaning "stripe,
blow." I have checked three lexicons. several commentaries, and many
>> >patah (as in haburah) is NEVER reduced to hatef.
>> >Besides, even if reduction would be there, dagesh would remain.
>> HH: You're right about the first part. I apologize. I assumed that
>> "haburah" had a qames at the start. The lexicon gives three alternate
>> spellings for this word, and it has no problem with dropping the
>> I'm not exactly sure why all the changes occur or why the alternate
>> spelling for haburah occurs here. This is the kind of detail I
>> generally avoid. I suspect it has something to do with the prefixed
>> preposition B. Gutturals prefer pathach before them, and also the
>> noun here is definite because of the suffix.
>> A grammar (GKC 27b) will say that in an open syllable the language
>> has frequently retained only a half-vowel where there originally
>> stood a full short vowel. (Actually the letter X at the beginning of
>> a word prefers hateph pathach.) That may be what has happened in this
>> alternate spelling for haburah, and it may be due to the fact that
>> otherwise there would be two adjacent pathachs because of the
>> prefixed preposition ba- in the word in Isa 53:5: WBXBRTW. Also, you
>> cannot normally have a short vowel in an open, unaccented syllable.
>> So the ba- sound before X needs the guttural X to close the syllable.
>> So the second pathach (under X) became hateph patach and the
>> following dagesh with B dropped.
>> With the dagesh and a pathach you have habburah. The hab- is a
>> separate syllable. If you go to a hateph pathach, then you lose the
>> separate syllable hab-, and I think the hateph pathach joins with the
>> following bu sound. In Isaiah 53:5 I guess the sound would be
>> There is another word for "stripe, mark" that also begins with a
>> hateph pathach: XBRBRH (Jer 13:23).
>> You are doubting a word here that the lexicons accept. Delitzsch says
>> that it's the same word as in Isa 1:6. I would say you should invest
>> in a good lexicon. You would save yourself a lot of headaches.
>> Harold Holmyard
>> >Vadim Cherny
>> >> >To begin with, haburah is a different word from havurah, since
>> >> >cannot account for hatef (ex-kamatz) in havurah.
>> >> HH: The hatef is there because of the 3ms pronominal suffix that has
>> >> been added to XBRH in Isa 53:5. When you add a pronoun suffix, it
>> >> often reduces the first vowel of the noun.
>> >> Yours,
>> >> Harold Holmyard
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> b-hebrew mailing list
>> >> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>> >b-hebrew mailing list
>> >b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew