Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Dear Bryan:

It was precisely Pro 26:21 that led me to question if such a root is 
legitimate. Yet this is the strongest case for that root.

Before Noah Webster, American spelling was quite fluid, a word may have two 
different spellings within one sentence.

Similarly, when reading through Tanakh, I noticed a certain amount of 
fluidity in spelling. Possibly the most common varient is that some nouns are 
written with a final heh, and a varient without the heh, but both from the 
same root with the same meaning. These appear to be varient spellings of the 
same word. Yet lexicographers list them with separate entries. I found myself 
asking “Why?” as I found example after example.

While I don’t consider myself reductionistic, I wonder how many entries are 
duplicated just from variations in spelling?

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>

> Hi Karl,
> 
> Roots are theoretical entities.  As I understand it, if the lexicographers
> find even slight evidence for a root they are likely to write an article for
> it, never wanting to be overly reductionist.  ;-)
> 
> The best evidence in the Holy Scriptures for a root xrr is Pro 26:21
> lexarxar.  If it is indeed an infinitive, it looks to be derived from xrr.
> Such a root is also attested in Ugaritic pre-dating the Tanakh as well as
> post-biblical Hebrew, not to mention other cognate languages such as Syriac
> and Accadian, so the lexicographers seem justified in inferring xrr.
> 
> 
> Shalom,
> Bryan
> 
> 
> B. M. Rocine
> Living Word Church
> 6101 Court St. Rd.
> Syracuse, NY 13206
> 
> ph: 315.437.6744
> fx: 315.437.6766
-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers