Biblical Hebrew Forum

["spyropoulos constandinos" <spyrcon AT otenet.gr>]

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Daladier Lima 
  To: spyrcon AT otenet.gr 
  Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 1:20 AM
  Subject: Informations


  Excuse me the antiethics way (i found your e-mail in b-hebrew discussion 
group), but the what you recommended to learned greek?
  Preferencially web resources, money is scarce for the time being :-).

  Best wishes

  Daladier Lima
  Brazil

Dear friends, Dear Daladier Lima 

Greetings to all of you from Athens, Greece

Until you approach to a level of a Hebrew to Hebrew reading Grammar Books
and Lexicons, I found, for English speaking people, a wonderful introducing
Biblical Hebrew Grammar book and a second one for advanced Hebrew learning
People of MENAHEM MANSOOR - BAKER PUBLISHING HOUSE - USA. A great variety of
exercises, reviews, vocabularies, a great grammatical and syntactical
analysis of the first chapters of GENESIS. I have found both of the books
very interesting years ago although I am not an English speaking person. I
do not know if they are out of stock.

Now I am using the Hebrew Lexicons and Concordances of Avraam Even Shoshan
(Hebrew to Hebrew) and a Hebrew to Hebrew Grammar of SHAOOL BARKALI,
publishing house of Reuben (Reouven) Mass - Jerusalem. I have also been using
his great noun and verb tables also in Hebrew. Five small but very practical
and useful tools (books) for Hebrew at accessible prices.

Regarding Biblical and Modern - current Greek I think that by using the 
searching machines (AlTAVISTA COM, YAHOO COM and others you will find 
something interesting. At the present time I have not anything special to 
suggest. Perhapes later on. For the time being I know that a well famous 
bookshop  (KOSMOS) in Athens and other greek towns is selling teaching books 
for Greek for non Greek speaking people. The traditional Grammar and Syntax 
books I know are for the Greek natives (everything is in Greek).




I hope that it helps in someway.



Best wishes



Spyropoulos Constandinos (Con)



Athens, Greece



spyrcon AT otenet.gr








  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Daladier Lima 
  To: spyrcon AT otenet.gr 
  Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 1:20 AM
  Subject: Informations


  Excuse me the antiethics way (i found your e-mail in b-hebrew discussion 
group), but the what you recommended to learned greek?
  Preferencially web resources, money is scarce for the time being :-).

  Best wishes

  Daladier Lima
  Brazil
>From sh AT teol.ku.dk  Sun Jan 26 07:11:37 2003
Return-Path: <sh AT teol.ku.dk>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from ibtmail1.ibt.ku.dk (ibtmail1.ibt.ku.dk [192.38.121.201])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1561200D2
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Sun, 26 Jan 2003 07:11:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: by IBTMAIL1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
        id <DSK7LK9A>; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 13:12:25 +0100
Message-ID: <A05CC14C616ED311B91C00A0C9F2911F06C06DB3@IBTMAIL1>
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Søren_Holst?= <sh AT teol.ku.dk>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: SV: [b-hebrew] Grammar Texts Question
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 13:12:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:11:37 -0000

> Now I am using ...  a Grammar of SHAOOL BARKALAY,
> publishing house of Reuben (Reouven) Mas - Jerusalem.
>
Is that his three volume "Dikduk ivri mudrag" ? ... I thought that was for
modern Hebrew (probably just my mistake?)

Soren, Copenhagen
>From 06peterson AT cua.edu  Sun Jan 26 07:22:02 2003
Return-Path: <06peterson AT cua.edu>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from nki004.netkonnect.net (nki004.netkonnect.net [63.140.32.4])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6094620023
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Sun, 26 Jan 2003 07:22:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from spedrson (remstar3887.netkonnect.net [63.140.38.87])
        by nki004.netkonnect.net (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id h0QCOJqU001418
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 07:24:20 -0500
From: "Trevor & Julie Peterson" <06peterson AT cua.edu>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Deut 32:5 SHiCHeT
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 07:24:56 -0500
Message-ID: <LPBBJNMHHJLOGDHKPGFOIEINCKAA.06peterson AT cua.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
In-reply-to: <001e01c2c4c7$00b51a80$64243540@hppav>
Importance: Normal
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:22:02 -0000

Kim wrote:
>
> Just read JP Fokkelman's _Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible_ Vol 1 which
> included an analysis of Deut 32. He says on 32:5:
>
> "Although the first sentence of v.5 has probably been subject to some
> corruption, the separate elements can be placed easily enough, so that I
> will not change the words

I wonder, if he thinks the sentence is probably corrupt, why he chooses not
to emend anything, simply because the elements "can be placed easily
enough." I could see arguing that one can't come up with a better proposal
and therefore leaving the passage in a corrupt state, but as it is, it seems
like a doctor saying, "There's probably something wrong with your foot, but
you still seem to be able to get around, so let's leave it like it is." It
might be a good strategy for someone who doesn't know much about medicine,
but what has the doctor really done to help anything?

(Please note that I'm not suggesting we should change the text
indiscriminately, but if he's willing to admit that there's a problem, I
wonder that it doesn't affect his treatment of the text, except apparently
to make him willing to accept any explanation, no matter how twisted. I'm
also not suggesting that everyone should emend the text in this particular
case, but we should at least have good reasons for what we do or don't do.)

[snipped]
>
> footnote (22) to this reads: "The combination 'not-his-sons [-anymore]'
> becomes acceptable when we come across this special use of the negation in
> v.17a, v.21a and v.21c.

This is true of BH poetic usage in general. Look for negative compounds that
you wouldn't normally see in prose, not just with lo, but with other
negatives as well.

> The word *muman* I interpret as a causal or modal
> adjunct; such an adjunct can be used in poetry without
> preposition.

Again, to generalize a bit, when we're dealing with poetry we don't see as
much use of what have been termed "prose particles." Note especially the
absence of ha-prefix articles/determined state, even when the noun is
clearly definite, et marker of the definite direct object, and various
connectives.

> The verb
> in front position does not have to agree with the subject in number."

I have my doubts about this statement as a general rule. I would prefer
something like what Ben suggested, to find a sense in which the subject is
understood to be a collective singular form, in which case the plural
possessive pronoun that comes later is still applicable.

I would note, BTW, that again we see the ancient versions treating this
verse differently. That in itself does not necessarily tell us that it's
corrupt, but it gives us some idea that either they had a different text or
they were struggling as much as we are to make sense of it.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics