Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <vadim_lv AT center-tv.net>]

Karl Randolph wrote:

> You wrote, "Take Gen 9:26, which Harold brings forward as the most relevant 
> to singular. Canaan will the slave of Shem. Of course, Noah does not speak 
> of one person becoming a slave to another, but rather of their posterity. 
> The collective plural of the people of Shem is lmo."

Verses 26 and 27 here say nothing about the posterity, just the individuals 
are named. Saying that it refers to the posterity is not exegesis, but 
eisegesis, where you are adding to the text. <

Canaan did not physically became a slave to Shem. Noah prophecied about the 
posterity.



Vadim Cherny
>From peterkirk AT qaya.org  Mon Dec 13 06:59:16 2004
Return-Path: <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449534C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 06:59:06 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [213.162.124.237])
        by smtp.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
        id 1B6C3417DA9; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:58:42 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <41BD8405.504 AT qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:59:01 +0000
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
        rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Samuel Arnet <samuel.arnet AT theol.unibe.ch>
Subject: Re: -mw suffix (was Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53:8)
References: <20041210205623.C4FB0101D0 AT ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>  
<41BAB2E3.2070700 AT theol.unibe.ch>       
<e6ea6c000412111337206c0455 AT mail.gmail.com>
        <41BBEC03.7070904 AT theol.unibe.ch>
In-Reply-To: <41BBEC03.7070904 AT theol.unibe.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/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/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:59:16 -0000

On 12/12/2004 06:58, Samuel Arnet wrote:

> ... L:MOW in fact only occurs 4 times (Job 27:14; 29:21; 38:40; 40:4).
>
And in none of these cases is it in a pausal position - indeed in all
but 29:21, it is linked to what follows by maqaf, and 29:21 is textually
doubtful.

But in Isaiah 53:8, Genesis 9:26,27 and Deuteronomy 33:2 twice, LF^MOW
is in a pausal position where a different form with retracted stress can
be expected. These are all of the cases listed at
http://whi.wts.edu/WHI/MORPH/BugTracker/7 as:

> In the following 5 cases, it *could* be X3ms but may be X3mp; listed
> below are the references in the order of descending likelyhood,
> according to JoЭon-Muraoka


In fact it seems that there is a strong tendency for LF^MOW, whether
singular or plural, to occur in pausal positions. I checked a good
proportion of the 55 cases with only one apparent exception.

So is it possible that LF^MOW and L:MOW are simply different forms of
the same lemma, with a rather regular stress shift? It looks as if
LF^MOW is the pausal form and L:MOW is a reduced form (cf. a construct)
used mostly when phonologically dependent e.g. joined by maqqef.

If this is true, I would expect to see a similar pattern with other
prefixes like K-. But if the pattern shows that the distinction between
-F^MOW and -:MOW is phonologically dependent i.e. linked to the
accentuation and stress environment, it becomes rather difficult to
maintain that they are semantically distinct forms showing a number
distinction.

I note after writing the above that this is no new controversy and no
new explanation. The issue is mentioned in Gesenius (GKC) 103f note 3,
where the link to the position of the pause is noted. Gesenius writes:

> The question whether LF^MOW can also stand for the sing. LOW ... must
> be answered in the affirmative unless we conclude with Diehl and Haupt
> that /all/ the instances concerned are due to corruptions of the text.
> It is true that in such places as Gn 9:26,27, Dt 33:2, Is 30:5, Ps
> 73:10 (all /in/ or immediately before the principal pause; in Dt 33:2
> with /Zaqeph qaton/ at least) LF^MOW can be better explained as
> plural... On the other hand, in Is 44:15 its explanation as plural
> would be extremely forced.


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