b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

[b-hebrew] Help

From: "Sesamo m." <sesamox AT hotmail.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] Help
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:19:11 +0100

Hello,

I wouldn't like to receive the information in my e-mail address, I prefer to check the web site. How can I do it?

Thanks!
Sergio

From: b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
Reply-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 1, Issue 8
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:45:18 -0500 (EST)

Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. RE: 'Blessing' - Root from??? (Trevor Peterson)
2. Re: 'Blessing' - Root from??? (Kirk Lowery)
3. RE: Unicode Hebrew fonts, was: Transliteration Schemes
(Paul Zellmer)
4. RE: The Meaning of brkh (Peter Kirk)
5. RE: RE: Transliteration Schemes (Peter Kirk)
6. RE: Unicode Hebrew fonts, was: Transliteration Schemes
(Peter Kirk)
7. RE: Unicode Hebrew fonts, was: Transliteration Schemes
(Peter Kirk)
8. RE: Unicode Hebrew fonts (Peter Kirk)
9. RE: Unicode Hebrew fonts, was: Transliteration Schemes
(Peter Kirk)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:45:33 -0500
From: Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>
To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org>
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] 'Blessing' - Root from???
Message-ID: <3E2AC36F AT 136.242.14.28>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 1

>===== Original Message From watts-westmaas <watts-westmaas AT zonnet.nl> =====
>And why would a verb,
>(BRCH), that essentially linked to 'Kneeling' also be used to mean 'To
>Curse' since I know of at least 4 hebrew words for 'Curse'? Thankyou all.

I think it's generally understood to be a euphemism, so instead of actually
saying "curse," you could be more polite by saying "bless."

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:21:54 -0500
From: Kirk Lowery <klowery AT wts.edu>
Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] 'Blessing' - Root from???
Message-ID: <3E2DC802.4090407 AT wts.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3E2AC36F AT 136.242.14.28>
References: <3E2AC36F AT 136.242.14.28>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 2

Trevor Peterson wrote:

>>===== Original Message From watts-westmaas <watts-westmaas AT zonnet.nl> =====
>>And why would a verb,
>>(BRCH), that essentially linked to 'Kneeling' also be used to mean 'To
>>Curse' since I know of at least 4 hebrew words for 'Curse'? Thankyou all.
>>
>>
>
>I think it's generally understood to be a euphemism, so instead of actually
>saying "curse," you could be more polite by saying "bless."
>
>
Here are some places where BRK is understood to be euphemistic:

1 Kings 21:10,13
Job 1:5,11

Blessings (no euphemism intended! :-)

Kirk
--
Kirk E. Lowery, Ph.D.
Director, Westminster Hebrew Institute
Adjunct Professor of Old Testament
Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

Theorie ist, wenn man alles weiss und nichts klappt.
Praxis ist, wenn alles klappt und keiner weiss warum.
Bei uns sind Theorie und Praxis vereint:
nichts klappt und keiner weiss warum!

>
>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:28:58 -0500
From: "Paul Zellmer" <paul AT smcfm.org>
To: "'Biblical Hebrew'" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Unicode Hebrew fonts, was: Transliteration Schemes
Message-ID: <LOBBLMLBGNECDPBLBJCDMEMFDPAA.paul AT smcfm.org>
In-Reply-To: <200301210830.16198.dwashbur AT nyx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1255"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 3

In answer to how Peter's attempt at using unicode looks in the digests, here
it is:

For example: the first word in the Hebrew Bible is =
=E1=CC=C0=F8=C5=E0=F9=D1=C4=E9=FA
B.:R")$IYT

Paul Zellmer

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:41:54 +1100
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] The Meaning of brkh
Message-ID: <003201c2c1c8$3650f350$687954d2@PeterKirkDell>
In-Reply-To: <391B56C096338944BBA74DC93E8AE9B016D421 AT exchange.cbcag.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
Message: 4

Vince, I think you are both right and wrong here. Right that these words
should be treated as distinct lexical items with distinct meanings. But
wrong in assuming that these are simply homonyms with no etymological
connection. There is good reason to understand (along with BDB) the
sense BRK "bless" as a secondary sense of BRK "kneel"; also B.:R"KFH
"pool, pond" as derived from BRK "bless", in a cultural context in which
a pool or pond of water is a very real blessing and evidence of God's
bounty. If there is evidence that these come from really separate roots,
I have not seen it. The "root fallacy" comes in when exegetes misuse
these links to tell us something about the "real" or "original" meanings
of the words.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
=A0=20
-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Medina, Vincent
Sent: 22 January 2003 06:56
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] The Meaning of brkh

Wes:
=A0
To attempt to derive the meaning of brk =93to bless=94 from other roots =
with
the same spelling is to commit the infamous =93root fallacy=94 (the =
mistaken
assumption that the meaning of words is derived from their roots). The
other roots you mention which mean =93spring=94 or =93knee=94 are merely
homonyms, i.e. words which are spelled and sound alike but have distinct
meanings. These occur in every language. In English the word =93bank=94 =
and
refer to the land at the edge of a body of water or a financial
institution. It would be a mistake to believe that one of these meanings
is derived from the other. There are numerous other examples in your
Hebrew lexicon of different roots with the same spelling. They should
also be treated as distinct lexemes. Hope this helps.
=A0
Vince
=A0
Solo Deo Gloria

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:41:54 +1100
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au>
To: "'Biblical Hebrew'" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] RE: Transliteration Schemes
Message-ID: <003301c2c1c8$37c2d2d0$687954d2@PeterKirkDell>
In-Reply-To: <001201c2c159$665e4760$e8870b44 AT no.cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 5

Thank you, Charles. I appreciate your point about the centrality of the
Hebrew script to Jewish culture and history. I would hope that anyone
learning Hebrew is also learning to appreciate this culture and history,
certainly not to denigrate them or impose other beliefs. I applaud you
for fostering this appreciation among non-Jews. And this in itself is a
good reason to learn the Hebrew script.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles David Isbell [mailto:cisbell AT cox.net]
> Sent: 22 January 2003 01:29
> To: Peter Kirk; 'Biblical Hebrew'
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] RE: Transliteration Schemes
>
> Hi Peter,
> I did not take your message as an attack. I thought it humorous to
use
> the
> word elitist when arguing that the alphabet WE find easy should
replace
> the
> alphabet the language itself uses to express itself. I hope you saw
my
> attempts at a little humor in what I was saying. I do feel strongly
that
> a
> transliteration system is more difficult to learn than the simple
alphabet,
> and the vowels can be taught easily. a with a macron, with a
circumflex,
> h
> or t with a sublinear dot, forward or backward apostrophe, dh for
Dalet or
> th for Tav without daghesh, etc., ad naseum. Do you really think
these
> are
> easy for English students?
> Here is a trick I use. Any vowel with dots is in the EE, EH, class.
If
> there is a line, it is in the AH class. If it is over or in the
letter,
> it
> is in the OO, UH class. OK, I save Qibbutz and Hateph Qamatz--hey I
have
> to
> make a living! But you would be surprised how quickly this
simplification
> works to get students started reading.
> Now the te'amim. We do not ignore them. We note their physical shape
> [are
> you aware that in some traditions a Gabbai gave hand signals to the
Ba'al
> Qore' to indicate the points?] and show how they are generally
indicative
> of
> connectors [mehaberim] or separators [mafsikim], rather easily
ascertained
> by the SHAPEs they take. Incidentally, my classes, 90% non-Jewish
SING
> Jonah by the end of the first twelve weeks, and find that it helps
their
> learning.
> Now I don't want to sound arrogant, but I believe the function of a
> teacher
> is to demystify the language for his students. If I am not afraid of
them,
> why should they be? For me, Hebrew is more than merely a language or
a
> tool
> to use for exegesis. It is the conveyor of my culture, the medium of
> expression of hope and grief and joy and faith, for thousands of
years.
> I
> pray in it, study in it, think in it, read it as part of the act of
> worship.
> If the goal of a class is merely to achieve minimal proficiency in
order
> to
> buttress what one already believed before the course began, that goal
can
> almost never be achieved, I feel. If the goal is to wrestle the demon
> grammar into submission and achieve mastery, to enter into and swim in
> [i.e., become a part of] the stream of tradition that has flowed
through
> the
> medium of Hebrew since long ago, even when falling short, one is
likely to
> progress farther than the other way.
> Just some thoughts,
> Be well,
> Charles
>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:41:54 +1100
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au>
To: "'Biblical Hebrew'" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Unicode Hebrew fonts, was: Transliteration Schemes
Message-ID: <003701c2c1c8$3a693ab0$687954d2@PeterKirkDell>
In-Reply-To: <000801c2c14d$b29ef680$2294d1d8@o3t2j9>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 6

Theresa, I don't know a way of doing exactly what you want. I see you
are using an older version of Outlook. At least in my version (2002) it
is possible (but tricky) to set a default font and size for all messages
which indicate (as mine did) that they are encoded as Hebrew. But this
would mean that the Latin script text would also come out larger in such
messages. Also, in some fonts the Hebrew letters are relatively larger
than the Latin, so try some different fonts and set your default
accordingly.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theresa Roth [mailto:theresaroth AT sympatico.ca]
> Sent: 22 January 2003 00:05
> To: Peter Kirk; 'Biblical Hebrew'
> Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Unicode Hebrew fonts, was: Transliteration
Schemes
>
> Yes, it appears. However, for my liking, the font is unattractive and
too
> small
> in comparison to the English beside it. This has also proven to be a
> problem
> when using Bibleworks and pasting something into Word. I always have
the
> font
> height in Hebrew set larger than in English. Is there an automatic way
to
> instigate this variance when both occur together?
>
> Theresa Roth
>
> Theresa Roth
> 10998 Longwoods Rd
> Delaware ON N0L 1E0
> (519) 878-3632
>
> theresaroth AT sympatico.ca <mailto:theresaroth AT sympatico.ca>
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:41:54 +1100
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au>
To: "'Biblical Hebrew'" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Unicode Hebrew fonts, was: Transliteration Schemes
Message-ID: <003c01c2c1c8$417a76c0$687954d2@PeterKirkDell>
In-Reply-To: <200301210830.16198.dwashbur AT nyx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 7

Dave, I would be very interested to know the results of your attempts to
type Hebrew in Linux, especially if you find an easy way to set this up.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Dave Washburn
> Sent: 22 January 2003 02:30
> To: 'Biblical Hebrew'
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Unicode Hebrew fonts, was: Transliteration
Schemes
>
> Well, I'm using Linux (Red Hat 8.0) and the Hebrew looks just fine
here.
> I'm
> not sure what it would take to type in it, but it would only take me
about
> a
> day to figure it out.
>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:41:54 +1100
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au>
To: "'Biblical Hebrew'" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Unicode Hebrew fonts
Message-ID: <003f01c2c1c8$46fcd570$687954d2@PeterKirkDell>
In-Reply-To: <NFBBKDEKJBKDMCGCFJNKCECJEKAA.lizfried AT umich.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 8

Liz, I see you are using Microsoft Outlook, 2000 version I think, but I
don't know what operating system underneath it. If you have Windows 2000
or XP or a Hebrew edition of earlier versions, you can simply install
the built-in Hebrew keyboard, or the SIL one using Keyman, and use that
directly in Outlook. If you have a western edition of Windows 95/98/ME,
your only chance, as far as I know, is to install Keyman and Wordlink
from www.tavultesoft.com and the Hebrew keyboard from the new SIL
system, and set up Outlook to use Word as its default editor. Even then
I don't guarantee the results.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Lisbeth S. Fried
> Sent: 22 January 2003 02:21
> To: 'Biblical Hebrew'
> Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Unicode Hebrew fonts
>
>
> I can read the Hebrew fine,
> How do I compose in it?
> I have Hebrew fonts on my word processor, how
> do I access it for e-mail???
> Liz
>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:41:54 +1100
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Unicode Hebrew fonts, was: Transliteration Schemes
Message-ID: <004301c2c1c8$4f337eb0$687954d2@PeterKirkDell>
In-Reply-To: <12b.20ab5600.2b5e50c3 AT aol.com>
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0044_01C2C224.82A3F6B0"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 9

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C2C224.82A3F6B0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0045_01C2C224.82A3F6B0"

------=_NextPart_001_0045_01C2C224.82A3F6B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes, this is almost certainly the result of your AOL software not
properly interpreting the encoding indicator on my e-mail. This was
actually =93Content-Type: text/plain;

charset=3D"windows-1255"=94, so indicating not Unicode but =
the
Windows Hebrew encoding =96 which supports vowel points but not
cantillations, I think.

=20

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
<http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/>
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Polycarp66 AT aol.com [mailto:Polycarp66 AT aol.com]=20
Sent: 21 January 2003 18:29
To: peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Unicode Hebrew fonts, was: Transliteration
Schemes

=20

In a message dated 1/21/2003 12:46:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au writes:

For example: the first word in the Hebrew Bible is =
=E1=CC=C0=F8=C5=E0=F9=D1=C4=E9=FA
B.:R")$IYT.

I did a test with formatting the text as Times New Roman (which I use to
enter Hebrew in HTML documents) but ended up with ???????. I think it's
AOL.

gfsomsel

------=_NextPart_001_0045_01C2C224.82A3F6B0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DWindows-1252">

<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">

<style>

</style>

</head>

<body lang=3DEN-GB link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

Yes, this is =
almost
certainly the result of your AOL software not properly interpreting the
encoding indicator on my e-mail. This was actually =93Content-Type: =
text/plain;

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
charset=3D"windows-1255"=94,
so indicating not Unicode but the Windows Hebrew encoding =96 which =
supports
vowel points but not cantillations, I think.

 

<div>

Peter Kirk 
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com 
<a
href=3D"http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/";>http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/</a><f=
ont
size=3D2 color=3Dnavy> 
  

</div>

<div style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm =
0cm 4.0pt'>

-----Original Message----- 
From: Polycarp66 AT aol.com
[mailto:Polycarp66 AT aol.com] 
Sent: 21 January 2003 =
18:29 
To: =
peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au;
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] =
Unicode
Hebrew fonts, was: Transliteration Schemes

 

In a message dated 1/21/2003 12:46:25 AM Eastern =
Standard
Time, peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au writes: 
 
 


For example: the first word in the Hebrew Bible is
=E1=CC=C0=F8=C5=E0=F9=D1=C4=E9=FA 
B.:R")$IYT.

 
 
I did a test with formatting the text as Times New Roman (which I use to =
enter
Hebrew in HTML documents) but ended up with ???????.  I think it's =
AOL. 
 
gfsomsel

</div>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_001_0045_01C2C224.82A3F6B0--

------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C2C224.82A3F6B0
Content-Type: text/html;
name="header.htm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-ID: <header.htm AT 01C2C202.6CA83000>

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";>

<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<meta name=3DProgId content=3DWord.Document>
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<meta name=3DOriginator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<link id=3DMain-File rel=3DMain-File =
href=3D"cid:.htm AT 01C2C202.6CA83000">
</head>

<body lang=3DEN-GB link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div style=3D'mso-element:footer' id=3Df1>

2

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C2C224.82A3F6B0--

------------------------------

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

End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 1, Issue 8
**************************************

_________________________________________________________________
Charla con tus amigos en línea mediante MSN Messenger: http://messenger.microsoft.com/es

[b-hebrew] Help, Sesamo m., 01/22/2003
- Re: [b-hebrew] Help, B. M. Rocine, 01/22/2003
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [b-hebrew] Help, Polycarp66, 01/22/2003