Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Uri:

There is only one root that is actually expressed in Tanakh, and in looking 
at all the derivitives used in Tanakh, there is no indication that there are 
any unexpressed roots.

The Arabic is a different language from a millenium later. Proto-Semitic is 
merely postulated based on presuppositions I believe are in error, based on 
the documented histories of some other languages. Ugaritic post-dates the 
earliest Hebrew by centuries, besides being a cognate language. Just because 
a cognate language has a phone or phoneme, does not mean that B-Hebrew ever 
had it. The same with lexemes. Just because a cognate language used a lexeme 
a certain way, does not mean that B-Hebrew ever used it in the same way.

Now I know that you disagree with much of what I claim. That doesn’t bother 
me. But you have absolutely no historical data to back up your claims. All I 
have in the internal claims of the extant documents. You, as the one 
challenging the internal claims, need to show actual data to show why the 
internal dates are not to be trusted. So far you have shown none, at least 
none that is based on history or linguistics. In fact, I wouldn’t be 
surprised if some of what you think is evidence is anachronistic application 
of post-Biblical Hebrew or even cognate languages to Biblical Hebrew.

In closing, I have seen no evidence from within B-Hebrew that would indicate 
that (LMH is other than the technical term for “virgin”. There are a couple 
of verses that at least hint that BTWLH could be one who is not a virgin.

Similarly that the root (LM means other than to make or be unknown. True, it 
is often used in the hiphil or causitive format, making it a synonym of STR 
to hide, but that does not change the root meaning of unknownness.

As for the theological implications of taking (LMH as “virgin” in Isaiah 
7:14, that is outside the pervue of this discussion list.

Karl W. Randolph.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Uri Hurwitz" <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>

> 
>     Of course;  I  avoided mentioning the other root, beginning 
> with 'Ayin, to prevent confusion, especially since it is totally 
> separate in  lexical meaning from that of ' Almah, which started 
> this discussion.
> 
>     Uri
> 
> Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:
> On 02/04/2005 16:36, Uri Hurwitz wrote:
> 
> > In the discussion of 'Almah one should keep in mind that this is 
> > one example of the change from proto-Semitic "ghayin" ( which 
> > disappeared in Hebrew, Phoenician etc.) into "'Ayin" , (YN. Other 
> > examples in BH are Ghaza, the city name that became 'Azah in BH, 
> > S(.)aghir, "small", became Tsa'ir, "young" in BH.
> > 'Almah is the F. of 'Elem in BH which is the exact equivalent of 
> > Ghulam in Arabic, meaning a young man.
> >
> >
> >
> ....And this Arabic root is not to be confused with the one underlying
> `aalam "world-- ....
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm