[b-hebrew] XSD

Karl Randolph kwrandolph at email.com
Mon Aug 22 20:45:15 EDT 2005


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org>

> On 22/08/2005 15:53, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > Peter:
> >
> > In Leviticus 20:17 is the XSD connected with the incest or the 
> > punishment? If with the incest then yes, it refers to a negative, 
> > but if with the punishment, then it is undeserved good favor to 
> > banish them when they deserve death.
> >
> >
> Well, the first clause in this verse starts at the beginning and 
> continues until XESED HU', with 'ASHER introducing a clause 
> subordinate to this one. The sentence structure in fact seems to 
> state that it is the man who is XESED, but it could be interpreted 
> that the whole situation is so descibed. But I don't see that the 
> meaning could a description of what follows, which is separated off 
> by the VAV conjunction attached to a QATAL verb (i.e. WEQATAL) 
> which always indicates a new clause.
Looking at the verse, the )$R precedes the XSD HW) so that 
the latter is either part of the subordinate clause, or 
the introduction to the following clause. I read it as the 

Secondly, does the WAW prefix on a verb always indicate a 
new clause, or only when affixed on a Qatal? I read the WAW 
to have the same force as on the final verb in Isaiah 53:2. 
Why should we consider them differently?

> ...
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/

On a related issue, when I see applications of a noun that 
is used well over 100 times in Tanakh, all of them having 
one meaning and only once apparently having a different and 
opposite meaning, I then question why? Is this a special 
figure of speach? Did I misunderstand the text? Is there 
possible copyest error? Is this a loan word from another 
language that just happened to have the same form as a 
previous lexeme in the language (though in this case, with 
Torah being the earliest section of Tanakh, it is very 
unlikely)? Are we looking at an unusual though acceptable 
grammatical construct? Is this slang? In short, a one time 
opposite use raises many red flags.

Karl W. Randolph.

Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list