[b-hebrew] Proverbs 26:21 hoarse?

Karl Randolph kwrandolph at email.com
Mon Sep 29 23:45:07 EDT 2003

Dear Bryan:

It was precisely Pro 26:21 that led me to question if such a root is legitimate. Yet this is the strongest case for that root.

Before Noah Webster, American spelling was quite fluid, a word may have two different spellings within one sentence.

Similarly, when reading through Tanakh, I noticed a certain amount of fluidity in spelling. Possibly the most common varient is that some nouns are written with a final heh, and a varient without the heh, but both from the same root with the same meaning. These appear to be varient spellings of the same word. Yet lexicographers list them with separate entries. I found myself asking “Why?” as I found example after example.

While I don’t consider myself reductionistic, I wonder how many entries are duplicated just from variations in spelling?

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine at twcny.rr.com>

> Hi Karl,
> Roots are theoretical entities.  As I understand it, if the lexicographers
> find even slight evidence for a root they are likely to write an article for
> it, never wanting to be overly reductionist.  ;-)
> The best evidence in the Holy Scriptures for a root xrr is Pro 26:21
> lexarxar.  If it is indeed an infinitive, it looks to be derived from xrr.
> Such a root is also attested in Ugaritic pre-dating the Tanakh as well as
> post-biblical Hebrew, not to mention other cognate languages such as Syriac
> and Accadian, so the lexicographers seem justified in inferring xrr.
> Shalom,
> Bryan
> B. M. Rocine
> Living Word Church
> 6101 Court St. Rd.
> Syracuse, NY 13206
> ph: 315.437.6744
> fx: 315.437.6766
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com

CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list