Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Ken:

Are all these nouns really possessing a sh- prefix? I can see is for the 
$LHBT (flame) but is not $BLWL (snail) from the same root as $BL (train (of 
gown)) referring to its trail of slime that follows it, and $Q(RWRT possibly 
from the same root as $Q( to subside (or does it mean splotchy, with spots of 
spreading fungus? (it is used only once))? In the latter two cases, is not 
the sh- an integral part of the noun?

Karl W. Randolph.

Ps. on a previous thread, we discussed a possible switch to unicode: even 
though this old computer has an older implementation of unicode so that it 
imperfectly reads Hebrew points though the consonants come out fine, all the 
examples in your message below came out as strings of question marks.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Penner" <pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca>

> 
> Perhaps he is thinking of nouns with a Sh prefix: ??????????? Shalhevet
> (flame), ?????????? Shabbelul (snail), Sheqa`arurot (hollow; Lev. 14:37),
> ?????????????
> 
> These are mentioned in GKC 55.i
> 
> Ken Penner, M.C.S. (Biblical Languages, Greek Focus), M.A. (Hebrew Poetry)
> Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster University
> pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca
> Flash! Pro vocabulary software: http://s91279732.onlinehome.us/flash or
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flash_pro/join
> 
> 
> > 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."
> 
> > So why is he saying that there is enough evidence to show it existed?
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm