[b-hebrew] Offend/dealt corruptly - chet bet lamed (nehemiah 1:7)

George F. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Fri Jun 25 12:34:27 EDT 2004

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:08:38 -0500 "Harold R. Holmyard III"
<hholmyard at ont.com> writes:
> Dear George,
> You wrote to Karl:
> >Enough of discussing abstractly the meaning of XBL; let's have a 
> concrete
> >instance.  What do you do with
> >
> >Mic 2.10
> >
> >QW.M W.L:KW. K.iY Lo)_ZoT HaM.:NW.TfH B.a(a:BW.R +fM:)fH T.:TaB."L
> >W:XeBeL NiM:RfC
> HH: You may have missed this following post to me 
> because it was under a different thread, but Karl 
> told us what he would do with Micah 2:10. I gave 
> him a whole set of verses translated by NIV with 
> the meaning of "deal corruptly" and "destroy" for 
> XBL. I included the Aramaic cognate verses in the 
> OT. I asked Karl what he would do with the 
> verses, and this is what he said:
> Secondly, some examples you listed below are in 
> Aramaic. I know enough Aramaic to read the 
> Aramaic portions of Tanakh, and no more. Just 
> because Aramaic has a particular meaning for a 
> lexeme, does not mean that Hebrew had the same 
> meaning: a good example being $KX 
> &#1513;&#1499;&#1495; in Hebrew meant to forget, 
> while in Aramaic it meant there is (found) or 
> very similar to Y$ &#1497;&#1513; in Hebrew. 
> Therefore, why should we expect that the Aramaic 
> XBL &#1495;&#1504;&#1500; has the same meaning as 
> the Hebrew lexeme? As a cognate language, we’re 
> not surprised if it has the same meaning, but 
> again, we’re not surprised if it doesn’t.


I probably did miss it.  To be quite frank, when you attach a
laundry-list of passages, I usually ignore them.  The way to get my
attention is to refer to one or two passages OR to insert commentary
between references.

I'm wondering, however, when Micah suddenly morphed into Aramaic.


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list