Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53: bruises?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53: bruises?
  • Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 15:05:38 -0500

Dear Vadim,

patah (as in haburah) is NEVER reduced to hatef.
Besides, even if reduction would be there, dagesh would remain.

HH: You're right about the first part. I apologize. I assumed that "haburah" had a qames at the start. The lexicon gives three alternate spellings for this word, and it has no problem with dropping the dagesh.

I'm not exactly sure why all the changes occur or why the alternate spelling for haburah occurs here. This is the kind of detail I generally avoid. I suspect it has something to do with the prefixed preposition B. Gutturals prefer pathach before them, and also the noun here is definite because of the suffix.

A grammar (GKC 27b) will say that in an open syllable the language has frequently retained only a half-vowel where there originally stood a full short vowel. (Actually the letter X at the beginning of a word prefers hateph pathach.) That may be what has happened in this alternate spelling for haburah, and it may be due to the fact that otherwise there would be two adjacent pathachs because of the prefixed preposition ba- in the word in Isa 53:5: WBXBRTW. Also, you cannot normally have a short vowel in an open, unaccented syllable. So the ba- sound before X needs the guttural X to close the syllable. So the second pathach (under X) became hateph patach and the following dagesh with B dropped.

With the dagesh and a pathach you have habburah. The hab- is a separate syllable. If you go to a hateph pathach, then you lose the separate syllable hab-, and I think the hateph pathach joins with the following bu sound. In Isaiah 53:5 I guess the sound would be u-vach-(a)vu-ra-to

There is another word for "stripe, mark" that also begins with a hateph pathach: XBRBRH (Jer 13:23).

You are doubting a word here that the lexicons accept. Delitzsch says that it's the same word as in Isa 1:6. I would say you should invest in a good lexicon. You would save yourself a lot of headaches.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard







Sincerely,

Vadim Cherny


>To begin with, haburah is a different word from havurah, since otherwise
you
>cannot account for hatef (ex-kamatz) in havurah.

HH: The hatef is there because of the 3ms pronominal suffix that has
been added to XBRH in Isa 53:5. When you add a pronoun suffix, it
often reduces the first vowel of the noun.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard

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


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page