Lisbeth S. Fried
lizfried at umich.edu
Tue Aug 10 11:34:26 EDT 2004
From: Uri Hurwitz [mailto:uhurwitz at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:26 AM
To: Lisbeth S. Fried; 'b-hebrew'
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Singers
Any root with a medial Waw assumes this form in the Piel.
Goodness, that's what I had always assumed, in fact.
I had always simply interpreted it as a piel.
That's why I was surprised to discover a whole new form.
It's listed in Gesenius as a "less common" conjugation, so
I didn't think it was piel but something I hadn't heard of before.
You may wish to check this out.
It seems to me there is no diffrerence in the meaning between the Qal and
Piel in this case, which I believe was the original question.
Yes, that is indeed my original question. I guess just style then.
"Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried at umich.edu> wrote:
Dear Peter, Yigal, et. al.,
First, thanks for thinking about this topic.
This lable for this form of the verb, polel, was new to me.
I had never thought about it as a separate form before.
Second, except for two other verses,
the polel of $yr appears only in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.
The two other verses are Job 36:24 and Zeph. 2:14
(according to Bible Works, I should add I suppose).
So, my primary question is what is the thrust of the polel here?
and, secondly, can we conclude anything from the fact that
it is largely confined to Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
> bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Yigal Levin
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:10 AM
> To: b-hebrew
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Singers
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Kirk"
> > >That's assuming that both the Deut. History AND Qohelet are pre-exilic,
> > >which most scholars would have reservations about.
> > >
> > >
> > Their reservations might evaporate if they took this kind of linguistic
> > evidence seriously. There are real linguistic differences between the
> > clearly post-exilic books and the rest of the HB, which imply at least a
> > different time of composition and suggest a period of instability
> > allowing rapid language change. (On this hypothesis, Esther has to be
> > explained as deliberate archaising.)
> > But I won't push for a pre-exilic Qohelet.
> > --
> > Peter Kirk
> I agree entirely that there are differences between pre- and post-exilic
> Hebrew, and I certainly don't subscribe to the "everything is late"
> However, in this particular case, the difference between $arim and
> cannot be demonstrated to be only chronological: true that WE HAVE
> only in post-exilic books, but $arim is in both. Which is why I suggested
> looking at different usages.
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the b-hebrew