[b-hebrew] Migdal-Eber

Maurice A. O'Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Fri Jun 4 21:06:25 EDT 2004

At 20:59 04/06/2004, wattswestmaas wrote:

>Finally I would just like to know if the verb: Aleph-Tav-Heh used in this
>sentence (Sometime Aleph-Tav-Aleph) belongs to the 'Lamed-aleph' or the
>'Lamed-heh' conjugation.

I must say you display an unerring instinct for picking out the more 
obscure and difficult occurrences of verbs <vbg>

The Theological Wordbook of the O.T has this to say about your example from 
Micah 4:8

 >> This is the usual word for "come" in BA, which lacks the Hebrew "bô". 
The word is used also in Hebrew , but only twenty times to twenty-five 
hundred of "bô". It appears in the NT in the phrase maran-atha, "Come, Lord!"

The normal word for "come" is bô" which is used over twenty-five hundred 
times in the OT. By contrast 'atâ is used only twenty times, twenty-one 
times if one accepts the emendation proposed by Dahood for Ps 74:9, "Our 
signs we do not see, there is no longer a prophet, and no one has "come" 
('ittanû > 'atanû) who knows how long." Eighteen of the twenty are in the 
Qal and two in the Hiphil (Isa 21:14; Jer 12:9) with the meaning "to 
bring." In the Aramaic sections of the OT, 'atâ occurs exclusively for "to 
come" and there sixteen times. Observe also that all of the Hebrew 
occurrences are in poetic passages, never prose.<<

As to the category to which it belongs is concerned, the Gesenius grammar 
has this to say, under the heading:  The Relation between Verbs Lamed-Heh 
and Lamed- Aleph

 >> 75 nn The close relation existing between verbs lamed-heh and 
lamed-aleph is shown in Hebrew by the fact that the verbs of one class 
often borrow forms from the other, especially in the later writers and the 
poets. <<

 >> 75 rr . ......... there are forms of verbs lamed-heh, which wholly or 
in part follow the analogy of verbs  lamed-aleph, e.g. in their consonants 
he comes, Is 21:12; <<

And, of course, your question was framed in an "either/or" way, whereas the 
verb you are considering is actually treated as one of a number of " Verbs 
Doubly Weak "  -- on which subject Gesenius remarks:
 >> 76 a  In a tolerably large number of verbs two radicals are weak 
letters, and are consequently affected by one or other of the anomalies 
already described. In cases where two anomalies might occur, usage must 
teach whether one, or both, or neither of them, takes effect. <<

So, my advice would be: buy Gesenius, look up the chapter and verse index, 
and the Index of Hebrew Words and Forms whenever you come on this kind of 



Maurice A. O'Sullivan  [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros at iol.ie

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list