[b-hebrew] Mem in the Middle of the Word

Brak Brak at neo.rr.com
Mon Jan 12 21:18:53 EST 2009


K Randolph wrote:
> I reject your reason as being valid. Simple as that.
>
> The good people at Westminster are into accurately transmitting the text,
> including all the points, unchanged from when the text of the WLC was
> written centuries ago. They are not into second guessing the Masoretes and
> why they (the Masoretes) chose to use which points where. There is much to
> commend this effort.
>
> On the flip side, this effort can lead to perpetrating error if the points
> were wrong in the first place.
>
> I have been very open that I read the text without points. In this way of
> reading the text, I have to use the context to tell me which words are
> connected to which roots and what their uses are in the sentences. With this
> being the case, I have found it not unusual that I disagree with the WLC
> points. In fact, some of the points are easily demonstrable as being wrong.
> Other times it is more of a judgment call.
>
> Two days ago I gave my read of how the words in question fit into their
> respective sentences. That is based on how the words fit into their
> contexts. In those three cases, it is obvious that I disagree with the
> Masoretic points. Your reason is that you accept the Masoretic points as
> being accurate, which I reject. But in this I understand you as being
> inconsistent, as you seem to be disagreeing with the points as found in
> those two verses in Chronicles, with which you opened this thread.
>
> I asked you to explain on the basis of the unpointed text, which you failed
> to do.
>
> Karl W. Randolph
I didn't know you rejected the Mesorah.

I'm not disagreeing with the Masoretic points, I don't know why you 
think that.
Again, this is where I think reading my initial post is important.

My original post:

***********************************************************************
I need help with two words found in two places.

1chr 15:13 - word 2: <L:/MA/B.F/RI)$OWNFH>
2ch 30:3 - word 11: <L:/MA/D.AY

Is the root of the <MA> either <MIN> or <MFH>  as different sources say 
one or the other?
***********************************************************************

Since all the other occurrences of the prefixed <M> are classified as 
the preposition <MIN>, to me it would seem that these two as well would 
be <MIN>. So I am wondering why it being a prefixed pronoun <MFH> (this 
would make these the only occurrences of a prefixed pronoun) is claimed 
by some.

So in the context of accepting the masorah of LC, what is the meaning of 
this prefixed <M>?
If it is <MFH>, how does one explain the presence of a prefixed pronoun?



B"H
John Steven


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list