Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

    The names are similar, though differently pointed which may well reflect 
different original pronounciations, as against that of David, where already 
in the consistent  plene spelling in Chronicles, with a Yud, the pointing of 
the Dalet is attested.
    Assuming however that all have a common origin, it still is not possible 
to determine with certainty their original meaning. Since, if each had been  
theophoric name, and appears now as a hypocoristicon they could as well have 
been shortened froms of the so called Amorite names, where a close family 
person stands for the deity,  such as ABRM , )MRM etc., in this case the full 
name  would hypothetically have been * DWDRM  --Dodram  -- exalted uncle. And 
not at all related to the beloved from Songs and elsewhere.
    The example from 2 Chr. 20 reflects defficient scribal transmission.
 
    Thus, I conclude, as I started on this matter: one simply does not know, 
just as one does not know the etymology of Yehudah!
 
    Uri

Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
In addition to David, there are several other people with similar names,
which do seem to preserve some theophoric element: DWDW (Dodo - Judg. 10:1);
DDY or DWDW in 2 Sam. 23:9, 1 Chr. 11:12 and 27:4; DWDWHW (Dodavahu) in 2
Chr. 20:37, and our own Elhanan's father, DWDW, in 2 Sam. 23:24 and 1 Chr.
11:26.

Yigal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" 

To: "Uri Hurwitz" 
Cc: 
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] David or Elhanan?


> On 28/01/2005 16:00, Uri Hurwitz wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > */Peter Kirk 
/* wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > Doesn't it make sense to derive the name DWD (sometimes DWYD) from
> > the
> > well-attested root DWD/YDD "love", so that it is effectively a
> > doublet
> > of the common noun DWD (pronounced dod) "beloved, uncle"? I agree
> > that
> > this derivation is not certain, but it does seem to make sense.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----In that case one would expect some a theophoric PN such as
> > either * DWD)L or
> >
> > *)LDWD or the attested Yedidyah. ...
> >
>
> Well, maybe, but there are other attested cases of what were presumably
> originally theophoric names of this kind which have lost their
> theophoric elements. I can think immediately of Nathan, presumably an
> abbreviation of Nathan'el or Nathanyahu. There are many others. So why
> not David?
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.6 - Release Date: 27/01/2005
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
>From yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com  Mon Jan 31 18:13:59 2005
Return-Path: <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.203])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30A94C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:13:59 -0500 
(EST)
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so713013wra
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:13:59 -0800 
(PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        
h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        
b=sMlotqy0ADXyr14HfCSsEqLC5BzmpABwmUZ3PBHtMnzrtEU0cqbG+E2BGEeJpPoT9XHaoy4B60YB8OahN6cEtvRT8qTB8QcC+QSYq7ys5qjjIHU91uCOSEWzBLg/kSM+pSGi2K5xEWxbSYoXWVyXWKdIFvy+JA/zwWMHAmZuo/M=
Received: by 10.54.49.37 with SMTP id w37mr337175wrw;
        Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:13:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.54.44.35 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:13:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e6ea6c0005013115136e36f0e1 AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 01:13:58 +0200
From: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [b-hebrew] "Shaf`el" in Hebrew?
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
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, 31 Jan 2005 23:13:59 -0000

In Semitic Languages: An Introduction (Hebrew), by Chaim Rabin, 1991, 
Biblical Encyclopedia Library, Chaim Rabin makes the following statement (p. 
55): "[In the period of the First Temple,] the `Shafel` causative binyan 
disappears (although there is enough evidence to show it existed) and the 
`Haf`el` that became `Hiph`il` becomes the only causative binyan."  This is 
all 
very nice, but it seems to me that two points may be made:

1) Canaanite tongues already had Haphel turn to Hiphil previously, based on 
Amarna.  (From Encyclopedia Judaica I found in "Hebrew Language",
16:1566): "The Hebrew causative prefix ha- appears in Amarna as
h_i- (attenuation).  The example is from EA 256:7, h_i-ih_-bi-e; it is
clearly a
hebrew form which is impossible in Akkadian.  The scribe used the Hebrew 
hh.by) ("hekhbi" - hid) for the common Akkadian verb of the same meaning, 
puzzuru."  

2) I am not sure that any other Semitic language has both Haphel and Hiphil.
Rather, it seems to me that Haphel and Hiphil have an H where the Semitic
language has a H for the third person pronouns and an $ where the language
has an $ for the third person pronouns.

So why is he saying that there is enough evidence to show it existed? Have I 
missed something?

Thanks :)
Yitzhak Sapir