[b-hebrew] Psalm 149:7 - Leningrad Codex Varient: Bal-Umim
pporta at oham.net
pporta at oham.net
Sun Apr 22 06:25:02 EDT 2007
> 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????
NOUN 1 --------- )UM.IYM (Psa 149:7) comes from )UM.FH, nation, people
(that does not appear in the Bible, I think).
Then, plural --------- )UM.IYM = nations (cf Psa 117:1, last word). But
also )UM.WOT (Num 25:15)
NOUN 2 ----------- L:)UM.IYM (Psa 67:5) comes from L:(OM, nation, people
Then, L:)UM.IYM = nations, peoples.
But if we prefix a lamed to noun 1, namely L:)UM.IYM, we get "to nations" (I
think it does not appear in the Bible).
a) lamed + noun 1 = to nations, to peoples.
b) noun 2 = nations, peoples
So, in a given context a word such as L:)UM.IYM can mean either:
a) to nations, to peoples
b) nations, peoples.
But, let us be aware that a) is feminine but b) is masculine. So, if an
adjective is to be attached to this noun a), it will be in feminine gender.
And if it has to be attached to noun b) it will be in masculine gender.
But since they come, as said, from different bases they are not related,
even if they essentially have the same meaning.
I think there must be some similar cases in other languages. That is to say:
two words that are formally identical, that mean the same thing but........
that are not mutually related... because they come from different root
I wonder, John, if the case you are dealing with ....... is a very special
> 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
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew