Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 27/01/2004 20:54, Bearpecs AT aol.com wrote:

> I've read that the singular G-d is 'el -- and 'eloah is a back-formation 
> without basis in other Semitic languages. ...
What about elah (Aramaic) and allah, ilah (Arabic)? What about cuneiform 
-(i)lu(h)a and -ila(h)i? What about Ugaritic plural 'ilhm, fem 'ilht? 
What about old south Arabic 'LH, fem 'LHT?  All of these have a clearly 
pronounced h as a root letter, as h is not used as a silent letter/mater 
in these languages. See HALOT for most of this evidence.

> ...  Does anyone have a citation or (better 
> yet) a proof one way or the other?
>
> Is 'elohim the plural (a) of 'eloah, or (b) of 'el?  
>  

(a). This is clearly true by the regular rules of making a plural. In 
principle (b) could also be true (one plural can have several singulars 
e.g. "axes" in English). But a plural ending with a he in it would be 
unique in Hebrew.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/