brw$w and ytrmh

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Wed Aug 15 15:51:33 EDT 2001


Thanks for the response, Ken.

Mine was basically a fishing trip because I had another translation whose value I
wanted to ascertain (Cook's in Wise/Abegg/Cook), a translation that was very
different from the others and apparently a little too liberal in its interpreting of
the text.

>Ian Hutchesson wrote re:1QS 7:6-7
>
>> They all agree on the notion of "in full" (br'$w, "in its
>> sum", BDB), but I can't get that from brw$w (which seems to
>> me to be possibly "in his/its poverty"). How do people
>> analyse this word?
>
>It's "rosh", but spelled with a waw mater rather than a quiescent alef,
>as also in 1QS X 8. So the BDB entry for r'$ is applicable. The noun
>forms of the root RW$ in BDB all have Y (i-class vowels) rather than W
>(u-class vowels), however, it is not easy to distinguish a Y from a W in
>the scrolls.

All agreed.

>> All the translations seem to agree on the notion of neglect
>> for ytrmh, but, according to BDB, rmh is heavier than neglect
>> (deceit). Am I missing something?
>
>There are three roots RMH in BDB. Number two is "deceive", and number
>three is "loosen (> be negligent)". As far as I can tell, none occur in
>a tD stem, although Jastrow's entry for the Aramaic Itpe. lists "to
>happen, chance", which may be related to negligence=leaving something to
>chance. Can you offer a better explanation why the T is there?

In Jeremiah 14:14 we have a word trmh, usually translated as "deceit", which is
quite reasonable given the context.

>Usually
>the tD stem is the reflexive/reciprocal of the Piel, which is attested
>with the meaning "deceive".

It looks like a hithpa`el, but neither the "loose" nor "deceit" connections make
sense to me in the reflexive.


Cheers,


Ian






More information about the b-hebrew mailing list