[b-hebrew] help with Ezekiel 32:21

kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Thu Sep 28 22:42:05 EDT 2006

@Yitzhak Sapir
You wrote:
YS:> No. First, notice that there are several definitions )ayil, so it 
> would be wise to  point out to which you refer. You refer to the first one, but there are three in all. 
Response: You're correct I only listed one, and the only reason I did that was because that is the one that actually list Ezk 32:21.  I could not find that verse listed amonst all the others so I did not bother.
You go on to say:
YS:Next, notice that there is )ayyal on the next column. This has all the 
> cognates that Fox lists for PS *)ayyal. Now, next to both, along with )eyal, 
> and )ayil (2), there is: ")WL (2)", meaning that HALOT views these words, 
> all these words as deriving from the second root )WL. If you look up this 
> second root )WL, you will see it is defined "to be in front, to be strong", and 
> that there is an Arabic and perhaps other uses of this verb. This root is 
> reconstructed in Hebrew, so evidently there aren't verbal uses of this root  in the Bible. However, it is viewed by HALOT as the root for both the > first and second )ayil definitions, )ayyal, )el, )ellah, )elon, 
> )allon, and perhaps 
> muwl. 
Response: Ok I follow you thus far.  BDB has pretty much the same thing as HALOT.  It reads 
be in front of, precede, lead; 
YS:Note that )ayyal has a dagesh inside the yod meaning that letter is 
> doubled. Fox evidently disagrees with reconstructing these words from a  verbal root since the study mentioned of Fox aims to reconstruct isolated  nouns -- those nouns that are not related to verbs and hence their  development can be traced. Nouns that are related to verbs are very hard 
> to trace in Semitic languages because their noun forms change along with 
> usage of the verb. Fox recognizes that sometimes verbs can occur relating 
> to isolated nouns in some languages but these are specific occurences that 
> are not widespread across all Semitic languages, and furthermore, it is 
> clear that the verb is a secondary formation from the noun. When the verb 
> is widespread or the verb does not appear to be secondary development 
> from the noun, Fox does not identify the word as an isolated noun. Finally, 
> note that even HALOT notes that some of its claims of )ayil (1) words are 
> alternatively explained as deriving from )el. In fact, the examples they give 
> are probably better explained as deriving from )el. I think that since )ayyal 
> and )ayil are so similar in consonants and semantics, it appears clear that 
> they are etymologically related, and deriving )ayil from )ayyal seems the 
> most reasonable way to do so. The derivation I gave for )ayil -- )ayyal -> 
> )ay.yl -> )ayil -- is not Fox's but I assume something like that is what he 
> intends since he places both as Hebrew cognates of PS *)ayyal. 

Response: Well thank you for a most enlightening discussion, I learned alot and you even help me read HALOT better.  I appreaciate it.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list