Bara: unique?

Polycarp66 at Polycarp66 at
Tue Mar 26 15:29:51 EST 2002

In a message dated 3/26/2002 2:10:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
language_lover64801 at writes:

>> What do you think of 1 Sam 2.29 in this regard? (Sorry about that R")$iYT 
>> there).
>> LfMfH TiB:(:a+W. B.:ZiB:XiY W.B:MiN:XfTiY ):a$eR CiW.iYTiY Mf(oWN 
>> )eT_BfNeYKf MiM.eNiY  ** L:HaB:RiY):aKeM **  M"R")$iYT K.fL_MiN:XaT Yi&
>> L"(aM.iY

>L:HAB:RIY):AKEM [lehavri'achem] comes from a different root-meaning
>altogether.  It is "to make fat," and only occurs in the hiphil (and only
>here?).  B.FRF) does not have a hiphil form, does it?  I can see BFRF)
>with a qal ("he created") and niphal ("he was created"), but a hiphil ("he
>caused to create"), I'm not sure.  Does that occur anywhere?  It's not at
>all the meaning in this verse (1 Sam. 2.29).



This is an interesting question.  When is BfRf) not BfRf?  We do have 
homophones and even words with the same spelling which have different 
meanings (such as "bear" 1. an animal 2. carry 3. give birth 4. tend to a 
particular direction.  Is this truly another word or is it simply another 
significance for the same word (1. is obviously a noun)?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list