Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Interchange of L/lamed with R/resh in Biblical Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Interchange of L/lamed with R/resh in Biblical Hebrew
  • Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:01:25 -0400

Jim,

The letters L and R don't "interchange". In my opinion the letter L indicates elevation and the letter R dispersion/aggregation. Every Hebrew root containing the letter R refers to a material state of several bodies, such as (RM for a heap of grain versus (LM for something tall and massive.
Some jump on this supposedly L-R interchangeability to relate Hebrew and Indo-European words, for instance KAPTOR of Exodus 25:33 to the Latin word capitulum. See: Vernes, Maurice: Les Emprunts de la Bible Hebraique au Grec et au Latin, Ernest Leroux, Paris, 1914, pages 68-69.
Often, the substitution of R for another letter sharpens the meaning of a word otherwise obscure. Take for instance the rare verb (AQAD of Genesis 22:9, lamely translated by the NAB as 'tied up', and by the JPS bible as 'bound'. Obviously it is the opposite of (AQAR, 'tore away'.
See more in my book at www.hebrewetymology.com

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 16, 2008, at 12:04 PM, JimStinehart AT aol.com wrote:


Interchange of L/lamed with R/resh in Biblical Hebrew

1. In connection with Isaiah 13: 22, Gesenius remarks: “the letter resh [R]
being softened into lamed [L] as is frequently the case.”

Is that comment generally accepted as accurate by modern scholars of Biblical
Hebrew?

Apparently the most famous example of this phenomenon is Isaiah 13: 22, where
the two underlying basic words, one spelled with a lamed/L and one spelled
with a resh/R, are as follows:

aleph-lamed-mem-nun/aLman = forsaken

aleph-resh-mem-vav-nun/aRman = palace

At Isaiah 13: 22, we see a feminine plural form, spelled with a lamed/L:

aleph-lamed-mem-nun-vav-tav

But although the lamed/L would normally indicate “forsaken”, here this word
is often taken to mean “palaces”, as if the second letter was resh/ R. Or
possibly there is a double meaning here, so that the word in context means “
forsaken palaces”. Gesenius further notes in this context: “i.q.
aleph-resh-mem-nun-tav (which is itself the reading of some copies)”.

2. Four more examples like this, with lamed/L being interchangeable with
resh/R in Biblical Hebrew in certain contexts, are set forth by Aloysius
Fitzgerald in “The Interchange of L, N, and R in Biblical Hebrew”, in “Journal of
Biblical Literature”, Vol. 97, No. 4 (Dec, 1978), pp. 481-488:

(a) At Job 6: 15-17, “understand… ayin-lm here as a dialectal form of
ayin-rm”. At p. 483. Ayin-resh-mem means “heaped”. Ayin-lamed- resh, by
contrast, “denotes ‘hidden from the mind so that one is unaware of, unconcerned about
an idea, activities, a situation or the like.’ The verb is never used of a
physical thing being hidden from the eyes of a beholder.” At p. 483. Here,
the snow is “heaped up”, rather than the snow being “unaware” of some “
situation”, or someone being “unaware” of the “situation” regarding the snow. This
is not a “mistake” in the text, but rather the poet is deliberately using
ayin-lm as a dialectal form of ayin-rm. “The poet used this dialectal form
because it fit the alliterative pattern of the colon l,l,l, which answers the
q,r,q,r pattern of the first colon.” At p. 485.

(b) “The second instance, confirmatory of the first, of this interchange [of
lamed/L with resh/R] in Job 6 is found in v 25: …Here nmrsw = nmlsw….” At
p. 485.

(c) At Psalms 37: 34b-35, “mt-ayin-rh [should be] understood as dialectal
mt-ayin-lh.” At p. 486.

(d) “There may be another instance of r for l in the same verse, once again
for the sake of alliteration. …Ayin-rys = ayin-lys in Ps 37: 35….” At p.
486.

3. The scholarly explanation of Aloysius Fitzgerald of this phenomenon of
resh/R and lamed/L sometimes being interchangeable in Biblical Hebrew is as
follows. Regarding an interchange of resh/R and lamed/L in Biblical Hebrew, this
is an “interchange of consonants in poetic texts…. [W]hat the poet is doing
is using a dialectal form that fits better the sound-patterning of his line.”
At p. 481.

4. Is this mode of analysis generally accepted by Biblical Hebrew scholars?
Could an author of Biblical Hebrew on occasion switch a resh/R with a
lamed/L, for the sake of alliteration, and also possibly for the sake of obtaining a
double meaning? Is resh/R a “dialectal form” of lamed/L and vice versa? If
so, then we wouldn’t expect this phenomenon to be limited in the Bible solely
to poetry, would we? Is Gesenius correct in noting “the letter resh [R] being
softened into lamed [L]…is frequently the case”?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best
2008. (http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacg00050000000102)
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page