Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Fred Putnam" <fputnam AT biblical.edu>]

Subject: Masculine-feminine nouns
Tony,

A good question! A noun's gender isn't revealed by its ending, but by the 
gender of adjectives and participles that modify it, pronouns that refer to 
it, 
and the verbs of which it is the subject. This explains why the lexica list 
words that are never modified and that don't occur as as the subject of a 
verb 
as n.[f.] or n.[m.]--i.e., a noun, apparently feminine or masculine (e.g., 
moshel and mshol, BDB p. 605).

This doesn't answer the "why" part of your question, but only "natural" 
gender (e.g., father, mother, brother) seems to follow the "rules" with any 
regularity, and even there the plurals may not match: ab:abot, issha:nashim.

Best wishes,
Fred


Date sent:              Wed, 05 Sep 2001 00:00:41 -0400
Subject:                b-hebrew digest: September 04, 2001
To:                     "b-hebrew digest recipients" 
<b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
From:                   "Biblical Hebrew digest" 
<b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Send reply to:          "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>

> B-HEBREW Digest for Tuesday, September 04, 2001.
> 
> 1. adonai vs. adoni
> 2. Mattfield article.
> 3. Pre-origins?
> 4. Semetic Vowels Finalized
> 5. Yiddish Question
> 6. RE: Yiddish Question
> 7. Re: Yiddish Question
> 8. Re: Yiddish Question
> 9. Re: Yiddish Question
> 10. RE: Semetic Vowels Finalized
> 11. RE: Yiddish Question
> 12. Masculine and Feminie Nouns
> 13. RE: adoni (adonee) applied to angels
> 14. RE: Semetic Vowels Revisited
> 15. Re: Yiddish Question
> 16. RE: Yiddish Question
> 17. Learning without vowels.  Was: Re: Semitic Vowels, addendum
> 18. Re: Semetic Vowels Finalized
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: adonai vs. adoni
> From: Dan Dyke <dan.dyke AT goodnews.net>
> Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 10:10:27 -0400
> X-Message-Number: 1
> 
> This is a distinction only seen in the pointed text is it not?  If so then 
> could
> it not be just a Masoretic invention-convention.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Mattfield article.
> From: =?iso-8859-1?q?ian=20goldsmith?= <iangoldsmith1969 AT yahoo.co.uk>
> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 17:29:02 +0100 (BST)
> X-Message-Number: 2
> 
> Walter.
> In follow up. I've just read the tagged article
> attached to your mail.
> Are you seriously suggesting that the entire Hebrew
> nation lived from generation to generation
> perpetuating an entirely false history of itself?
> You obviously have an axe to grind about the
> reliability of the OT, but most of your conclusions
> defy common sense.
> Why on earth would a nation so loving cherish the
> historical tales of their forefathers if they were
> nothing more than lies?
> You can't be serious when you write that there was..
> "No Moses, No Joshua, No Yahweh" 
> and that..
> "Yahwehism did not arise from a series of revelations
> to Abraham in Canaan and the Negeb ca. 2000 BCE -there
> was no well of Beersheba".
> I don't know that Napoleon ever existed or Plato or
> Alaxander, Aristotle, Horice, Bede or even Van Gogh
> for that matter. I've no evidence, there isn't much
> except a few written accounts and some bits and bobs.
> But I believe the accounts I've read of them, why? 
> Because making up such complex accounts defies common
> sense, what would be the point. No one wants to
> believe a lie, lies are soon forgotten, but people
> will base there lives and those of entire nations on
> what is widely accepted as the truth.
> Sory Walter I cannot accept your conclusions. It's
> more likely that the myths of the surrounding nations
> are drawn from the ancient story of Genesis than vice
> versa. It certainly makes more interesting reading.
> 
> Anyone else got any thoughts??
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
> or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Pre-origins?
> From: =?iso-8859-1?q?ian=20goldsmith?= <iangoldsmith1969 AT yahoo.co.uk>
> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 16:57:50 +0100 (BST)
> X-Message-Number: 3
> 
> Walter.
> Thank you for your insight into the origins of the
> names of the OT characters, they are... interesting.
> But I return to a point already stated in a previous
> discussion. The lack of physical evidence that dates
> the OT as older than Babylonion or Assyrian or any

> other texts doesn't mean that it isn't so.
> 
> The whole basis of your argument for the OT names of
> the Lord being derived from some other earlier
> narrative hangs on those narratives being 'earlier'.
> Just because we have them written down for us doesn't
> make them neccasarily 'older' and therefore more
> relaible, physical evidence is only part of the
> puzzle.
> 
> I may be going out on a limb here, but to make
> 'Elohim', 'Yah' etc. come from 'Enki' is a bit of a
> stretch of the imagination, who's to say that the
> babylonian myths aren't derived from Genesis. In the
> end it has to come down to what you prefer to believe,
> there isn't any 'conclusive' evidence either way.
> 
> Personally I choose to believe that the Genesis
> account is more historically reliable than those of
> its contemporaries. The openning chapters of Genesis
> are grander and philosophically more appealing and
> challenging than any of the babylonian or canaanite
> myths, in which the deities described are less
> admirable than many human leaders.
> 
> There is a simplicity and granduer to Genesis that
> makes it an unlikely candidate for a re-working of an
> inferior tale like that of the 'Enki' myth. 
> 
> At the end of the day you can put any spin you like on
> archaelogical evidence, much of it will depend on what
> you want to find in it. Sadly until something gets
> discovered in the Middle Eastern desert somewhere I'll
> have to just believe that Genesis pre-dates existing
> finds. 
> 
> Thanks for stoking the fire though.
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
> or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Semetic Vowels Finalized
> From: "Matthew R. Miller" <biblicalscribe AT hotmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:26:04 -0400
> X-Message-Number: 4
> 
> Thanks to all for the interesting replies to my Semetic written vowel
> questions. I suppose my questioning was more theoretical than anything
> else. The answer I received that makes the most sense to me so far is that
> writing was developed as a sort of shorthand, so that the fewer elements,
> the better. The only problem I have with that answer would be that, given
> the several languages I have studied, writing seems anything but
> simplified. Take for example, the accents of modern Vietnamese, or the
> vowel pointing of Arabic, or the thousands of ideograms of modern Chinese
> or ancient Egyptian. Is it that spoken language is just SO complex that
> ANY writing must necessarioly be complex, even though it be simpler than
> speech? Or is there another possible theoretical explanation of the lack
> of vowels in many ancient Semetic languages? Thanks, Matt
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Yiddish Question
> From: "Matthew R. Miller" <biblicalscribe AT hotmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:29:07 -0400
> X-Message-Number: 5
> 
> Shalom to all,
> Since Yiddish is technically a fusion between Hebrew and German, I suppose
> a Yiddish question is not out of place on this list. So, here it is: What
> is the linguistic origin of the Yiddish phrase "oy vey?" I have been told
> two separate explanations. One, from a former German professor, is that it
> comes form the German expression "Oje," a simple expression of grief or
> frustration. Another is that it is a contraction of a swear involving the
> divine name, YHVH, thus "O!" + "YHVH." Any ideas? Thanks, Matt
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: RE: Yiddish Question
> From: Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:36:28 -0400
> X-Message-Number: 6
> 
> While learning Hebrew, I was struck by the fact that "my enemies" is 
> pronounced oyvey, but I highly doubt that that has anything to do with 
> anything . . .
> 
> Trevor Peterson
> CUA/Semitics
> 
> >===== Original Message From "Matthew R. Miller" 
> ><biblicalscribe AT hotmail.com> 
> =====
> >Shalom to all,
> >Since Yiddish is technically a fusion between Hebrew and German, I suppose 
> >a
> >Yiddish question is not out of place on this list. So, here it is: What is 
> >the
> >linguistic origin of the Yiddish phrase "oy vey?" I have been told two 
> >separate
> >explanations. One, from a former German professor, is that it comes form 
> >the
> >German expression "Oje," a simple expression of grief or frustration. 
> >Another
> >is that it is a contraction of a swear involving the divine name, YHVH, 
> >thus
> >"O!" + "YHVH." Any ideas? Thanks, Matt
> >
> >---
> >You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [06peterson AT cua.edu]
> >To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> >To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Re: Yiddish Question
> From: "Jonathan D. Safren" <yon_saf AT bezeqint.net>
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:42:29 +0200
> X-Message-Number: 7
> 
> My enemies = Meine soynim.
> 
> Jonathan D. Safren
> Dept. of Biblical Studies
> Beit Berl College
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Trevor Peterson" <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>
> To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 8:36 PM
> Subject: RE: Yiddish Question
> 
> 
> > While learning Hebrew, I was struck by the fact that "my enemies" is
> > pronounced oyvey, but I highly doubt that that has anything to do with
> > anything . . .
> >
> > Trevor Peterson
> > CUA/Semitics
> >
> > >===== Original Message From "Matthew R. Miller"
> <biblicalscribe AT hotmail.com>
> > =====
> > >Shalom to all,
> > >Since Yiddish is technically a fusion between Hebrew and German, I
> suppose
> > >a Yiddish question is not out of place on this list. So, here it is: 
> > >What is
> > >the linguistic origin of the Yiddish phrase "oy vey?" I have been told 
> > >two
> > >separate explanations. One, from a former German professor, is that
> it
> > >comes form the German expression "Oje," a simple expression of grief or
> > >frustration. Another is that it is a contraction of a swear involving the
> > >divine name, YHVH, thus "O!" + "YHVH." Any ideas? Thanks, Matt
> > >
> > >---
> > >You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [06peterson AT cua.edu]
> > >To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> > $subst('Email.Unsub')
> > >To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il]
> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> > To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Re: Yiddish Question
> From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <cierpke AT prodigy.net>
> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 14:47:38 -0400
> X-Message-Number: 8
> 
> Matth:
> 
> The Biblical/classical  Hebrew for "woe"  is 'oy which explains the " 'oy"
> part of it
> 
> Kevin
> 
> 
> At 02:29 PM 9/4/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >Shalom to all,
> >Since Yiddish is technically a fusion between Hebrew and German, I suppose 
> >a
> >Yiddish question is not out of place on this list. So, here it is: What is 
> >the
> >linguistic origin of the Yiddish phrase "oy vey?" I have been told two 
> >separate
> >explanations. One, from a former German professor, is that it comes form 
> >the
> >German expression "Oje," a simple expression of grief or frustration. 
> >Another
> >is that it is a contraction of a swear involving the divine name, YHVH, 
> >thus
> >"O!" + "YHVH." Any ideas? Thanks, Matt
> >
> >---
> >You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [cierpke AT prodigy.net]
> >To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> >To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> >
> >
> Kevin W. Woodruff, M. Div.
> Library Director/Reference Librarian
> Professor of New Testament Greek
> Cierpke Memorial Library
> Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary
> 1815 Union Ave. 
> Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
> United States of America
> 423/493-4252 (office)
> 423/698-9447 (home)
> 423/493-4497 (FAX)
> Cierpke AT prodigy.net (preferred)
> kwoodruf AT utk.edu (alternate)
> http://pages.prodigy.net/cierpke/woodruff.htm
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Re: Yiddish Question
> From: "stoney" <stoney AT touchwood.net>
> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 13:50:17 -0500
> X-Message-Number: 9
> 
> At 02:29 PM 9/4/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >Shalom to all,
> >Since Yiddish is technically a fusion between Hebrew and German, I suppose 
> >a
> >Yiddish question is not out of place on this list. So, here it is: What is 
> >the
> >linguistic origin of the Yiddish phrase "oy vey?" I have been told two 
> >separate
> >explanations. One, from a former German professor, is that it comes form 
> >the
> >German expression "Oje," a simple expression of grief or frustration. 
> >Another
> >is that it is a contraction of a swear involving the divine name, YHVH, 
> >thus
> >"O!" + "YHVH." Any ideas? Thanks, Matt
> 
> 
> I have always assumed, on no evidence whatever, that the 'vey' represented
> German 'weh'='woe'.  Run it by your German professor . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: RE: Semetic Vowels Finalized
> From: Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:58:18 -0400
> X-Message-Number: 10
> 
> As I said, it "started" as shorthand.  (The common example is the cuneiform 
> sign
> for sheep, which seems to have begun with little round disks with an 
> inscribed
> plus.  If these were standard counters used to keep track of numbers of 
> sheep,
> it would have been natural to use the sign of a circled plus as a sign for
> sheep.)  In its logographic origins, the first concern was probably to find 
> the
> simplest sign possible to represent the word in mind.  But over time, as 
> writing
> takes on its own life, other concerns become more pressing.  Because 
> cuneiform
> was written on clay with a reed stylus, it was easier to make wedge-shaped
> impressions than to scratch linear shapes.  The wedge patterns may have
> approximated the original drawings, but they were quickly losing their
> resemblance to the word or idea represented, in favor of more efficient 
> style. 
> The trick is getting from whole-word representations to something more
> versatile.  With cuneiform, they went in the direction of syllabary--the 
> sign
> for a common word could be used to represent the initial sound in that 
> word, and
> the syllabic values could be combined to form more abstract concepts, 
> foreign
> words, morphological elements, personal names, etc.
>  Cuneiform never lost its original logographic quality, but the inventory of
> syllables multiplied, and syllabic writing became more prevalent, with 
> certain
> stock terms retaining their logographic representation.  By modern 
> standards, a
> syllabary is quite complex, and the logographic values complicate matters.  
> But
> it was what they had, and they made adaptations within that system.  
> Imagine how
> difficult it would have been to completely overhaul what already existed and
> come up with a new system that everyone would use.  I think the tendency is 
> for
> writing systems to adapt, but not change their nature altogether.  Of 
> course,
> once cuneiform came into competition with the much simpler and more 
> versatile
> NWS abjads, it didn't last long in common use.  (Not that it ever was in
> "common" use.  The system was so complex, probably very few could use it 
> with
> much facility.)  Then again, we can't think only in terms of replacement of
> writing systems.  Aramaic also replaced Akkadian as the standard language of
> Mesopotamia--to my knowledge, Akkadian was never written widely (if at all) 
> in
> the newer, alphabetic script.
> 
> Meanwhile, in Egypt you had hieroglyphics--basically an alphabetic 
> system--and
> another system that used wedge-shapes at Ugarit--also alphabetic (in the 
> loose
> sense--technically, if it doesn't represent vowels, it can be called an 
> abjad). 
> The Phonecians (and probably other Canaanites) used a linear writing system 
> with
> similar representational quality, but otherwise a bit difficult to trace.  
> (I
> think it's generally thought that Egyptian influence was stronger.)
>  The Greeks borrowed the same system and adapted it to represent vowels; 
> other, Semitic groups seem to have got along fine without them for much 
> longer.  Yes, many of them would eventually introduce voweling in one form 
> or
> another, but it was usually not essential for writing and often a secondary
> development on top of already existing consonantal texts.  Today, most 
> surviving
> Semitic languages can be written with or without vowels.
> 
> Again, the pattern seems to be adaptation and adjustment, but not full-scale
> overhauling of what already exists for a given language.  Just like spoken
> language and spelling convention pick up a lot of extra complexities along 
> the
> way ("silent" consonants, for instance, which are usually just diachronic
> vestiges; or "irregular" forms that also go back to causes in an earlier 
> stage),
> writing can hardly help but preserve some of its history.  At least, that 
> seems
> to be part of the picture.
> 
> Trevor Peterson
> CUA/Semitics
> 
> >===== Original Message From "Matthew R. Miller" 
> ><biblicalscribe AT hotmail.com> 
> =====
> >Thanks to all for the interesting replies to my Semetic written vowel
> >questions. I suppose my questioning was more theoretical than anything
> >else. The answer I received that makes the most sense to me so far is that
> >writing was developed as a sort of shorthand, so that the fewer elements, 
> >the
> >better. The only problem I have with that answer would be that, given the
> >several languages I have studied, writing seems anything but simplified. 
> >Take
> >for example, the accents of modern Vietnamese, or the vowel pointing of 
> >Arabic,
> >or the thousands of ideograms of modern Chinese or ancient Egyptian. Is it 
> >that
> >spoken language is just SO complex that ANY writing must necessarioly be
> >complex, even though it be simpler than speech? Or is there another 
> >possible
> >theoretical explanation of the lack of vowels in many ancient Semetic
> >languages? Thanks, Matt
> >
> >---
> >You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [06peterson AT cua.edu]
> >To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> >To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: RE: Yiddish Question
> From: Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 15:01:55 -0400
> X-Message-Number: 11
> 
> Hey, at least it helped me remember oyev for "enemy."  I wasn't learning 
> Yiddish, anyway . . . :-)
> 
> >===== Original Message From "Jonathan D. Safren" <yon_saf AT bezeqint.net> 
> >=====
> >My enemies = Meine soynim.
> >
> >Jonathan D. Safren
> >Dept. of Biblical Studies
> >Beit Berl College
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Trevor Peterson" <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>
> >To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 8:36 PM
> >Subject: RE: Yiddish Question
> >
> >
> >> While learning Hebrew, I was struck by the fact that "my enemies" is
> >> pronounced oyvey, but I highly doubt that that has anything to do with
> >> anything . . .
> >>
> >> Trevor Peterson
> >> CUA/Semitics
> >>
> >> >===== Original Message From "Matthew R. Miller"
> ><biblicalscribe AT hotmail.com>
> >> =====
> >> >Shalom to all,
> >> >Since Yiddish is technically a fusion between Hebrew and German, I
> >suppose
> >> >a Yiddish question is not out of place on this list. So, here it is: 
> >> >What is
> >> >the linguistic origin of the Yiddish phrase "oy vey?" I have been told 
> >> >two
> >> >separate explanations. One, from a former German professor, is that
> >it
> >> >comes form the German expression "Oje," a simple expression of grief or
> >> >frustration. Another is that it is a contraction of a swear involving 
> >> >the
> >> >divine name, YHVH, thus "O!" + "YHVH." Any ideas? Thanks, Matt
> >> >
> >> >---
> >> >You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [06peterson AT cua.edu]
> >> >To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> >> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> >> >To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il]
> >> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> >$subst('Email.Unsub')
> >> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >---
> >You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [06peterson AT cua.edu]
> >To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> >To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Masculine and Feminie Nouns
> From: "Tony Costa" <tmcos AT hotmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 19:15:11
> X-Message-Number: 12
> 
> Dear Friends,
> 
> 
> Just a few questions. Why are Hebrew words like LaYLaH (night), 'OTH  
> (sign) and
> BBaYiTH (house) considered masculine when the word for night has a final he
> preceded by a qames, the sign of the feminine ending, and the words "sign" 
> and
> "house" both end in a final taw, also typical of a feminine noun or 
> substantive?
> I can understand that 'aV the word for "father" is masculine even though in 
> its
> plural form it is feminine 'aVOTH, but the 3 nouns I mentioned can be 
> confusing
> to a novice in biblical Hebrew. Best regards,
> 
>                                         Tony Costa
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: RE: adoni (adonee) applied to angels
> From: "Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 23:41:45 +0100
> X-Message-Number: 13
> 
> Part of the confusion arises here in that the form Adonai/Adonoy can be 
> just a
> form of Adon, meaning "my lords", plus I think it is pointed with qamets at 
> the
> end, as always in the divine title, only when in pause. Thus there is some
> ambiguity, possibly deliberate, over this form when it occurs at Genesis 
> 18:3,
> 19:2,18, where the reference is again to angels (or however you might 
> interpret
> this). I don't know of any (other) occurrences of Adonai (with qamets) with
> human referent. So when someone wrote "(The second form of "Adonai" is used 
> in
> the plural, of men, very occasionally.)", perhaps they were thinking that 
> the
> referents in these verses are men, not angels or God himself? Then there is 
> the
> textually doubtful Ezra 10:3, which could refer to either Ezra or God.
> 
> There are certainly a number of times where Adon is used to refer to God,
> especially in the expression "the lord of the whole earth". (This is the
> full (?) list according to BDB: Ex 23:17, 34:23, Dt 10:17, Jos 3:11,13, Neh
> 8:10, 10:30, Ps 8:2,10, 97:5, 114:7, 135:5, 136:3, 147:5 Is 1:24, 3:1,
> 10:(16?),23, 19:4, 51:22, Hos 12:15, Mi 4:13, Zc 4:14, 6:5, Mal 1:6, 3:1). 
> But
> that is not the same as saying that it is a divine title. Thus in English, 
> one
> might use "Master" in reference to God, but it would not normally be 
> considered
> a divine title. On the other hand, the form Adonai is almost always a divine
> title.
> 
> In answer to Dan Dyke's point, I am here referring to the Masoretic Text 
> and not
> trying to dig into the background of that text. That is a complex can of 
> worms
> which I don't want to open.
> 
> As for search engines, I wasn't thinking of Internet ones, rather the search
> facilities which come with various Bible study packages e.g. BibleWorks,
> Gramcord. I am sure they could answer your questions, at a price.
> 
> Peter Kirk
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Schmuel [mailto:schmuel AT bigfoot.com]
> > Sent: 02 September 2001 13:57
> > To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
> > Cc: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
> > Subject: RE: adoni (adonee) applied to angels
> >
> >
> > Shalom b-hebrew,
> >
> > Thank you Peter for a quick and helpful response..
> >
> > Peter Kirk,
> > >ADONI is ADON "(human) lord or master" with the first person singular
> > >possessive suffix. Don't confuse it with ADONAI, the divine title. In BDB
> > >there is a list of many of the occurrences of ADONI, including (as the
> > >article no doubt points out) Ps 110:1. Or try any search engine.
> >
> > Schmuel
> > Yes, understand the distinction between adonai (adonoy in New Yawk)
> > and adoni
> >
> > Though I don't know an Internet search engine that makes the distinction
> >    simple to find, I use www.crosswalk.com lexicon on the Net and mainly
> >    the Jay Green Interlinear to look at the Hebrew words ... suggestions ?
> >
> > Now it may be overstating to use the expression  ---
> >
> > ADONI is ADON "(human) lord or master"  ...... since we have
> > these examples..
> >
> >     a)  adoni is also used for angels  (in the 3 cases we are discussing) 
> > b) 
> >     adon itself, according to the same source, is used for YHWH
> > -----------
> > http://anthonybuzzard.home.mindspring.com/BD86.htm
> > 2. ADON ....Apart from about 30 occasions where it refers to the Divine
> > Lord....
> > -----------
> > (I don't have these 30 occasions handy, as I don't have BDB .. yet :-)
> >
> > now it seems it would be more appropriate to say about adoni..
> >
> > ADONI - lord or master, not used in reference to YHWH (or Deity)
> > ADON  - lord or master (used in various ways)
> >
> > Peter
> > >As for specific references to angels, BDB mentions Jos 5:14, Jdg 6:13.
> >
> > Schmuel
> > Thank you Peter, these are exactly what I was looking for..
> > (For reference I put the Scripture references at bottom of the post..)
> >
> > As for Adonai, the Divine Title, if this is accurate (from the
> > COG website)
> >
> > 3. ADONAI
> > (The second form of "Adonai" is used in the plural, of men, very
> > occasionally.)
> >
> > Would that qualify as an exception that should be included in
> > calling Adonai
> > the divine title ? ... or is this a form used exclusively for
> > plural of men
> > only and
> > therefore doesn't mitigate on the expression "Divine Title" ...
> >
> > (similar to the way adonov, his master, tho quite similar to adonai,
> >   seemingly would not ever be used for the Creator)
> >
> > I would be interested in knowing those examples and looking at the exact
> > difference in the plural of men form in the Hebrew spelling ...
> >
> > Thank you for you assistance on all this :-)
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------------------------------
> > One other interesting thing I did discover in this is that in the
> > Pentateuch
> > the Tetragrammaton is used in writing about the Creator, yet the
> > speakers referring to him always use Adonai .. (I am omitting any
> > concern for usage of Elohim or other forms in this observation)
> > This distinction in usage does not carry forward into the rest of Tenakh
> > where Boaz uses the Tetragrammaton directly in speaking a
> > blessing/greeting
> > (thought this may be the only exception to not speaking the
> > Tetragrammaton)
> > while Adonai begins to be used in writing about the Creator..
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------------------------------
> > Joshua 5:13-14 (KJV)
> > And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted
> > up his eyes
> > and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with
> > his sword
> > drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou
> > for us, or for our adversaries?
> > And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now
> > come. And
> > Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, 
> > What
> > saith **my lord** unto his servant?
> >
> > Judges 6:11-13
> > And there came an angel of the LORD, and sat under an oak which was in
> > Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abiezrite: and his son Gideon
> > threshed wheat by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites.
> > And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him,
> > The LORD is
> > with thee, thou mighty man of valour.
> > And Gideon said unto him, Oh **my Lord**, if the LORD be with us,
> > why then
> > is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which our fathers
> > told us of, saying, Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt? but now the
> > LORD hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------------------------------
> >   Schmuel
> > > > http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/BD86.htm
> > > >     SIT  THOU AT  MY  RIGHT  HAND (Psalm 110:1) by Allon
> > Maxwell Sept 1998
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >     4. ADONI
> > > >     "It appears 195 times, and is used almost entirely of human
> > > > lords (but occasionally of angels).
> > > >
> > > >   Daniel 12:8
> > > >   And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what
> > > > shall be the end of these things?
> > >
> > > >    Can anyone here help with some others .. ?
> >
> > Schmuel AT bigfoot.com
> > Messianic_Apologetic-subscribe AT yahoogroups.com
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: RE: Semetic Vowels Revisited
> From: "Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 23:41:53 +0100
> X-Message-Number: 14
> 
> Trevor and Randall have made good points. But there is a special distinction
> with Semitic languages, which perhaps also applied to the distantly related
> Egyptian. The structure of these languages (based on triliteral roots) 
> makes it
> relatively easy to understand a consonant only text. In many other 
> languages the
> vowels also play a very important distinctive role (and in some, tone also
> does). For these languages, it is necessary to write the vowels, or to use
> pointing with scripts that are used without pointing for Semitic languages.
> 
> Peter Kirk
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matthew R. Miller [mailto:biblicalscribe AT hotmail.com]
> > Sent: 02 September 2001 13:17
> > To: Biblical Hebrew
> > Subject: Semetic Vowels Revisited
> >
> >
> > Shalom l'kol:
> >
> > I had asked once before for anyone's ideas or theories about the lack of
> > vowels in anciet Semetic language, but as of yet received no response to
> > that specific topic. My questions are these: were all human written
> > languages devoid of vowles in early times, or only Semetic ones? If so,
> > when did vowels begin to be written in the texts?  If not, then why only
> > Semetic? Why did the ancients feel free to leave out these vowels, when
> > moderns (except Semetic peoples of course) feel the need to include them? 
> > Any
> > theories, thoughts, etc. would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Matthew
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Re: Yiddish Question
> From: ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick)
> Date: Tue,  4 Sep 2001 23:16:31 +0100
> X-Message-Number: 15
> 
> On Tue  4 Sep 2001 (13:50:17), stoney AT touchwood.net wrote:
> > I have always assumed, on no evidence whatever, that the 'vey'
> > represented German 'weh'='woe'.  Run it by your German professor . . .
> >
>  From a poem I learnt at school:
> 
>  Ein Winzer, der am Tode lag,
>  Rief seine Kinder zu und sprach:
>  'In unserm Weinberg liegt ein Schatz;
>  Grabt nur danach!' - 'An welchem Platz?'
>  Schrie alles laut den Vater an.
>  'Grabt nur!' - O weh! da starb der Mann. (usw)
>                 ^^^^^
>  First stanza from Gottfried August Buerger, /Die Schatzgraeber/.
> 
>  HTH
>  Ben
> -- 
>  Revd Ben Crick, BA CF
>  <ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk>
>  232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
>  http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: RE: Yiddish Question
> From: "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:08:02 -0400
> X-Message-Number: 16
> 
> Yes, a friend of mine who specializes in 15th century German
> said that "veh ist mir" is "woe is to me" in 15th century German,
> and so in Yiddish. The Oy is Hoy, from Hebrew. 
> So it's "Woe, woe is me."
> (Which explains why it isn't Woe is I.)
> Liz
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Crick [mailto:ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk]
> > Sent: Tue, September 04, 2001 6:17 PM
> > To: Biblical Hebrew
> > Subject: Re: Yiddish Question
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue  4 Sep 2001 (13:50:17), stoney AT touchwood.net wrote:
> > > I have always assumed, on no evidence whatever, that the 'vey'
> > > represented German 'weh'='woe'.  Run it by your German professor . . .
> > >
> >  From a poem I learnt at school:
> > 
> >  Ein Winzer, der am Tode lag,
> >  Rief seine Kinder zu und sprach:
> >  'In unserm Weinberg liegt ein Schatz;
> >  Grabt nur danach!' - 'An welchem Platz?'
> >  Schrie alles laut den Vater an.
> >  'Grabt nur!' - O weh! da starb der Mann. (usw)
> >                 ^^^^^
> >  First stanza from Gottfried August Buerger, /Die Schatzgraeber/.
> > 
> >  HTH
> >  Ben
> > -- 
> >  Revd Ben Crick, BA CF
> >  <ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk>
> >  232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
> >  http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [lizfried AT umich.edu]
> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
> > $subst('Email.Unsub')
> > To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Learning without vowels.  Was: Re: Semitic Vowels, addendum
> From: Bearpecs AT aol.com
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:15:44 EDT
> X-Message-Number: 17
> 
> 
> --part1_ad.ff0be50.28c6e4d0_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> In a message dated 9/3/01 3:45:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> ButhFam AT compuserve.com writes:
> > For that, I recommend using vocalized texts, contrary to typical ulpan 
> > practice in Israel.[snip] Learning to read unvocalized texts is no 
> > problem at
> > all--if the person already knows the language. 
> 
> I agree.  I have been plodding through Thackston's Introduction to Syriac.  
> It
> makes no sense to double the learner's work:  when I see the Syriac word, I 
> have
> to remember both what it means and how to pronounce it.  If I could see the
> vowels as I read, I would begin to assimilate the patterns which are 
> essential
> and then move on to reading unvocalized texts.
> 
> 
> 
> --part1_ad.ff0be50.28c6e4d0_boundary
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>In a message dated 9/3/01 
> 3:45:13
> AM Eastern Daylight Time, <BR>ButhFam AT compuserve.com writes: 
> <BR></FONT><FONT 
> COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE
> TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; 
> MARGIN-RIGHT:
> 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">For that, I recommend using vocalized texts, 
> contrary to
> typical ulpan <BR>practice in Israel.[snip] Learning to read unvocalized 
> texts
> is no problem <BR>at <BR>all--if the person already knows the language.
> </FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial"
> LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <BR>I agree. &nbsp;I have been plodding through
> Thackston's Introduction to Syriac. &nbsp; <BR>It makes no sense to double 
> the
> learner's work: &nbsp;when I see the Syriac word, <BR>I have to remember 
> both
> what it means and how to pronounce it. &nbsp;If I could <BR>see the vowels 
> as I
> read, I would begin to assimilate the patterns which are <BR>essential and 
> then
> move on to reading unvocalized texts. <BR> <BR></FONT></HTML>
> 
> --part1_ad.ff0be50.28c6e4d0_boundary--
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Re: Semetic Vowels Finalized
> From: Bearpecs AT aol.com
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:31:26 EDT
> X-Message-Number: 18
> 
> 
> --part1_40.10d2674f.28c6e87e_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> In a message dated 9/4/01 2:26:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> biblicalscribe AT hotmail.com writes:
> > Or is there another possible theoretical explanation of the lack
> > of vowels in many ancient Semetic languages? 
> 
> I'm really not sure what the real question is here.  Are you asking why 
> SEMITIC languages didn't seem to care much about the vowels, in comparison 
> with
> NON-SEMITIC languages.  If that's the question, the standard answer IMHO is
> sufficient:  Semitic languages rely on consonantal roots which carry 
> meaning and
> on predictable patterns which determine vocalization.  Is there something 
> that
> remains unexplained? (By the way, note that although Ugaritic otherwise 
> does not
> indicate vowels, it does so at the beginning of words which start with 
> aleph.)
> 
> 
> --part1_40.10d2674f.28c6e87e_boundary
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>In a message dated 9/4/01 
> 2:26:03
> PM Eastern Daylight Time, <BR>biblicalscribe AT hotmail.com writes:
> <BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial"
> LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid;
> MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Or is there another
> possible theoretical explanation of the lack <BR>of vowels in many ancient
> Semetic languages? </FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
> FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <BR>I'm really not sure what the 
> real
> question is here. &nbsp;Are you asking why <BR>SEMITIC languages didn't 
> seem to
> care much about the vowels, in comparison <BR>with NON-SEMITIC languages.
> &nbsp;If that's the question, the standard answer IMHO <BR>is sufficient:
> &nbsp;Semitic languages rely on consonantal roots which carry <BR>meaning 
> and on
> predictable patterns which determine vocalization. &nbsp;Is there 
> <BR>something
> that remains unexplained? <BR>(By the way, note that although Ugaritic 
> otherwise
> does not indicate vowels, <BR>it does so at the beginning of words which 
> start
> with aleph.) <BR></FONT></HTML>
> 
> --part1_40.10d2674f.28c6e87e_boundary--
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> END OF DIGEST
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [fputnam AT biblical.edu]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub') To subscribe, send an email to
> join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> 


Frederic Clarke Putnam, Ph.D.
"Dominus illuminatio mea."

Professor of Old Testament
Biblical Theological Seminary
fputnam AT biblical.edu
215-368-5000x150 (office & voice-mail)