Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Harold:

It is precisely because I had difficulty with the traditional meaning that I 
even considered a different reading. That is why I asked if there is a 
grammatical reason not to read it as such, not what does tradition say. By 
tradition, I include the Masoritic pointing.

There is no grammatical indication that this is a question.

The context indicates that a man should be looking at his wife only, not at 
other women, which should “be dispersed from his eyes”. My reading keeps the 
grammar as standard instead of changing to a grammatically non-standard 
question and fits the context. Is there any grammatical point that I overlook?

Karl W. Randolph.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
> 
> Dear Karl,
>
> > The verb is plural third person, but the subject is PLGY MYM.
> >
> > M(YNTYK cannot be the subject, as it has a prefixed M- short for
> > MN which can never be the subject of the verb.
>
> HH: It only has a prefixed MN in your interpretation. You know that
> you are ignoring the standard meaning for the term given in all
> translations I've seen. So why push such obscurantist logic? The
> word means "spring," and the M is part of the noun, not a prefix.
>
>                                       Yours,
>                                       Harold Holmyard
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm