Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 3/26/2002 2:10:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, language_lover64801 AT yahoo.com writes:

>> What do you think of 1 Sam 2.29 in this regard? (Sorry about that R")$iYT in
>> there).
>>
>> LfMfH TiB:(:a+W. B.:ZiB:XiY W.B:MiN:XfTiY ):a$eR CiW.iYTiY Mf(oWN WaT.:KaB."D
>> )eT_BfNeYKf MiM.eNiY  ** L:HaB:RiY):aKeM **  M"R")$iYT K.fL_MiN:XaT Yi&Rf)"L
>> L"(aM.iY

>L:HAB:RIY):AKEM [lehavri'achem] comes from a different root-meaning
>altogether.  It is "to make fat," and only occurs in the hiphil (and only
>here?).  B.FRF) does not have a hiphil form, does it?  I can see BFRF)
>with a qal ("he created") and niphal ("he was created"), but a hiphil ("he
>caused to create"), I'm not sure.  Does that occur anywhere?  It's not at
>all the meaning in this verse (1 Sam. 2.29).

Regards,
Jason
   _____________________

Jason,

This is an interesting question.  When is BfRf) not BfRf?  We do have homophones and even words with the same spelling which have different meanings (such as "bear" 1. an animal 2. carry 3. give birth 4. tend to a particular direction.  Is this truly another word or is it simply another significance for the same word (1. is obviously a noun)?

GfSomsel