[b-hebrew] Asher in Ps 51:10?
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Tue Apr 12 09:53:33 EDT 2011
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, the correctness of a proposition is not a voting issue.
> Karl, the fact that several words in the Bible have a wrong pointing -I do
> not deny this- does not imply that wrongness is the general rule
> concerning the masorete points.
I think that the Masoretic points as indicators of meaning are correct most
of the time.
If only 1% of the points are wrong, with an average of three points a word
would mean one in 33 words is wrong, and assuming an average of 10 words a
verse would make fewer than one verse in three could be read wrongly because
of wrongly pointed words. I think that fewer than 1% of points are wrong as
indicators of meaning.
(I think most are wrong as far as recording Biblical era pronunciation, but
that’s a different issue and irrelevant to this discussion.)
However, of verses with which we have difficulties, such as this verse in
Psalms, it seems that well over half can be read clearly if all we do is to
> I sincerely think that you're completely mistaken at claiming that DKYT in
> Ps 51:10 is an adjective.
Then how do you explain the missing )$R that should be there if DKYT is a
verb? But if it is an adjective, then )$R should not be there and it isn’t.
> Quite friendly,
> Pere Porta
It looks as if we have reached an impasse in this case: I point out that
there is a pattern of where nouns, adjectives and adverbs are derived from
roots by use of -YT suffix, point to grammar and syntax that indicates that
this is an adjective, yet you prefer to go along with tradition (Masoretic
points) which you admit is sometimes wrong. It also looks as if you go along
with an argument of what should be according to theory, instead of what is
observed when we read the text.
So let’s agree to disagree, and go on to other cases.
Karl W. Randolph.
> 2011/4/12 K Randolph <kwrandolph at gmail.com>
>> That nouns, adverbs and adjectives are derived from verbs by adding a -YT
>> suffix leaves open the possibility that in this case, this is an example of
>> such a derivation. Therefore the lack of an )$R in this phrase is not an
>> anomaly, but expected because of what words are used. That’s how I see it.
>>> Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew