Biblical Hebrew Forum

["B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>]

Dear Karl,

I think whenever `ayin appears in the dual it means "eyes," but whenever it 
appears in the plural it means "springs."  Hence if we re-vowel the word in 
Pro 5:16 to read me`eynoteyka it means "from your springs" not "from your 
eyes."  When `ayin is singular, context will have to tell whether it means 
"eye" or "spring."

I vote leaving the MT as is and wrestling with whether Pro 5:16 is a 
question or a hope.

Shalom,
Bryan


you wrote:

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


-- B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

ph: 315.437.6744
fx: 315.437.6766