[b-hebrew] Num. 32:42

Edgar Johnston eddielilo at verizon.net
Mon Jul 28 08:51:46 EDT 2008


Yigal,

I don't have time myself, but you probably need to check the discussion in
Gesenius (sections 8m, footnote 1, 14a-d, 58g, 91e, 103g (end), 14d (for the
4x it is found in aleph).  Someone has already mentioned the possibility of
a he directive (1 Kgs 2:40 - he went to Gath), but there are various
possibilities whether one agrees with Gensenius or not.  Meantime
phonological studies have gone forward.  Newer studies in phonology and
morphology should be consulted.  Best wishes,

Edgar Johnston

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of pporta at oham.net
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 1:54 AM
To: Yigal Levin; b-hebrew; biblicalist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Num. 32:42


> 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)

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list