[b-hebrew] someone knows? HMT
randallbuth at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 14:51:09 EDT 2011
> Is the list below exhaustive, or just representative?
It was exhaustive, though as output from an electronic
> You have been wrong often enough that I cannot trust
> just your say so,
I'm not sure that you are in a position to judge this,
or that the statement is the proper way to say 'thanks'.
Let's see-- just this month --
you sent a half-dozen emails arguing that Ps 51:10
MUST have אשר asher 'that'
if DIKKITA (DKYT) was to be read as a verb.
That claim was incorrect, of course, as was shown.
Now here in this case --with more than a half dozen
emails where you
1. claimed that a suffix -TM needed to be written according to
your "CV" Hebrew (note the phraseology
"would have to assume that here we are dealing with a
copyist error"-- but nothing was 'compelling' that, except
a mistaken 'BH', and it was certainly not presented as
"[KR] However, to maintain that reading [HMTM='you put to
death'-RB], I would have to assume that here we are dealing
with a copyist error, as the form of the word does not fit that
and 2. often evaded the argument with false claims:
>>Again, in 2 Samuel 1:9, 16, while these are not hiphils, they
>> are conjugated from MWT where the second tau is the
>> normal conjugation suffix for the use and context.
> [RB: (corrective response)]
> Wrong. It is not true that
> "the second tau is the normal conjugation suffix"
> [root m.w.t. in the polel binyan with two 't' required: motet]"
> and your list of verses gave me the clues I needed. Thanks.
And this leads to the points that you did not address.
Have you recognized what this data says concerning
your claim about CVCVCV Hebrew?
One of the benefits of specifying what a viewpoint teaches is
that a person can check them out to see if they line up with the
data. Here, the data was 116 to 0 against the starting point.
That would lead most people to reconsider the 'theory', which
can be a lights'-on experience. Or at least 'smelling the coffee'.
So CVC syllables are BH, and LBH (Second Temple), besides
being Aramaic, Arabic, and Hebrew morphology as recorded by
>> shalom Nir,
>> > whether this T-dagesh construction is general in the tanakh or
>> not, i cannot say as i have no access to heavy machinery. but one
>> should look for roots like
>> $T, NXT, (hifil: HYNXYT), KRT, (hifil: HYKhRYT), KFT,
>> KTT, (piel: KYTET), $TT, STT, (WT (hiil)
>> that end with T, in past tense, before
>> -TY (first person) or -TA/T (secnd sing) or -TEM/TEN (second plural)
>> and see whether the dagesh always appears and one T is dropped.
>> i think the answer is yes, and then euphony would be the only plausible
>> You are basically correct, and checking this out is what anyone disputing
>> should have done along time ago.
>> Here are the references where a verb is found with a root
>> ending in 't' and with a suffix beginning with 't'. In all cases,
>> where the two 't' would come into phonetic juxtaposition,
>> only ONE taw is written. This does not make for interesting
>> reading. But it documents the data.
>> Gen. 19:19, Ex. 1:16, Ex. 5:5, Ex. 23:31, Ex. 34:27, Lev. 17:10,
>> Lev. 20:3, Lev. 20:5, Lev. 20:6, Lev. 26:6, Lev. 26:30 , Num.
>> 14:15, Num. 17:6, Num. 32:15, Deut. 4:25, Deut. 20:20, Deut. 31:16
>> , Josh. 23:4, 1Sam. 15:3, 1Sam. 17:35, 2Sam. 1:16, 2Sam.
>> 13:28, 2Sam.
>> 14:30, 1Kings 9:7, 1Kings 14:10, 1Kings 21:21, 2Kings 9:8, 2Kings
>> 17:38, Is. 9:3, Is. 13:11, Is. 14:20, Is. 14:22, Is. 14:30, Is.
>> 16:10, Is. 21:2, Jer. 7:34, Jer. 11:10, Jer. 17:27, Jer.
>> 21:14, Jer.
>> 31:31, Jer. 31:32, Jer. 32:40, Jer. 34:13, Jer. 43:12, Jer. 48:33,
>> Jer. 48:35, Jer. 49:27, Jer. 49:37, Jer. 50:32, Jer. 51:20, Ezek.
>> 7:24, Ezek. 12:23, Ezek. 14:8, Ezek. 14:13, Ezek. 14:17, Ezek.
>> 16:41, Ezek. 21:8, Ezek. 21:9, Ezek. 23:27, Ezek. 23:48, Ezek.
>> 25:7, Ezek. 25:13, Ezek. 25:16, Ezek. 26:13, Ezek. 28:8, Ezek.
>> 28:17, Ezek. 29:8, Ezek. 30:10, Ezek. 30:13, Ezek. 30:15, Ezek.
>> 34:10, Ezek. 34:25, Ezek. 35:7, Ezek. 37:26, Hos. 1:4, Hos. 2:5,
>> Hos. 2:13, Hos. 2:20, Hos. 9:16, Amos 1:5, Amos 1:8, Amos 1:14,
>> Amos 2:3, Obad. 10, Mic. 5:9, Mic. 5:10, Mic. 5:11, Mic.
>> 5:12, Nah.
>> 2:14, Zeph. 1:3, Zeph. 1:4, Zeph. 3:6, Hag. 2:5, Zech. 9:6, Zech.
>> 9:10, Zech. 11:10, Mal. 2:8, Psa. 8:7, Psa. 73:27, Psa. 73:28, Psa.
>> 88:7, Psa. 88:9, Psa. 89:4, Psa. 89:24, Psa. 89:45, Psa. 90:8, Psa.
>> 119:119, Job 7:14, Job 23:17, Job 31:1, Prov. 23:8, Dan.
>> 8:17, 2Chr.
>> (Is 9.3 [root H.t.t.] fits this picture, too, because haHitt-o-ta has a
>> separating vowel between the collapsed root letters that precede, and the
>> suffix. Thus, the suffix cannot be joined to the previous 'taw', because of
>> the vowel. The other two H.t.t. examples, Jer 49.37 and Job 7.14, show both
>> root letters and the suffix joins the second root letter-taw, like all of
>> the other examples above.)
>> So the voice is unanimous.
>> It's not often when things are that black and white in language.
>> Randall Buth
Randall Buth, PhD
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
More information about the b-hebrew