[b-hebrew] Num. 32:42

pporta at oham.net pporta at oham.net
Mon Jul 28 01:53:38 EDT 2008

> Does anyone have any idea why there is no mappiq in the last letter of the 
> word LH, third word from last in Num. 32:42? The mappiq is missing in both 
> BHS and in the Aleppo-based Breuer prints.
> Yigal Levin

This question of yours maybe could refer as well to the same word in Rt 2:14 
and in Zc 5:11?
A way to find an answer to this question would perhaps be: are there in the 
Bible some other cases where a final suffix H meaning "her" or "she" (and 
that from a theoretical viewpoint should have the mappiq dot) lacks mappiq?

Pere Porta
Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain)

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list