[b-hebrew] Psalm 149:7 - Leningrad Codex Varient: Bal-Umim

Brak Brak at neo.rr.com
Sat Apr 21 22:55:37 EDT 2007

Please excuse my ignorance here, but I'm kind of confused.

Let me restate what I think I'm hearing:

)UM.IYM means "peoples"
L: means "to" or "for"

L:)UM.IYM means "peoples"

But L:)UM.IYM  does not mean L: plus )UM.IYM

That just doesn't make sence. Both )UM.IYM  and L:)UM.IYM  look 
identical except the one has L: added and they both mean the same thing 
"peoples" but yet they are not related????

I hope my confusion on this makes sence. Logic would dictate (at least 
in my mind) they are are realted - look alike means the same.

Can I please recieve an explaination as to why - how despite looking 
identical and meaning identical things that they are not related?

John Steven

"If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you 
-Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.

Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 20/04/2007 00:10, Brak wrote:
>> Sorry about the missing alephs. I thought I had typed them.
>> I was wondering of the word )UM.IYM was related to the word "mother".
>> Now you state that L:)OM and I would assume you would also include 
>> the words in question )UM.IYM  and  L:)UM.IYM is most likely not 
>> related to )UM.IYM and )UM.FH
>> I was wondering why you think that. To my limited knowledge it would 
>> appear that )UM.IYM was the basis for L:)UM.IYM and that in fact 
>> L:)UM.IYM should be morphed as L:/)UM.IYM to mean "to people" or "for 
>> people"? Or would it be some grammar thing in which the L: is doing 
>> something to the word instead of adding "to"?
> I think that because Hebrew does not have prefixed nouns. That is, 
> prefixes like L- can be attached to nouns to make prepositional 
> phrases, hence L- attached to )UM.IYM makes "to the people". But this 
> does not make a new noun with a modified meaning, as it would in Greek 
> or Latin, or to some extent in English e.g. "stander" > "bystander". 
> So the noun L:)UM.IYM, despite looking identical to L- plus )UM.IYM, 
> must be from a separate root. At least, that is standard Hebrew 
> grammar and lexicography. I would not say that exceptions are 
> impossible, but it would need high level expertise to argue the case 
> for this being one.
>> Also, I checked in the Aleppo Codex and it has BAL:)UM.IYM so I am 
>> wondering is the LC the only one with this variant.
> According to the notes in BHS at Psalm 44:15, "mlt Mss Edd" have the 
> Aleppo reading, which is explained as between 20 and 60 of the 
> manuscripts and editions consulted. This is to be distinguished from 
> "permlt Mss" meaning more than 60. The implication seems to be that 
> there is more than one manuscript or edition which does not agree with 
> Aleppo.
> Peter

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list