Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com> wrote, in part:
"...The Arabic is a different language from a millenium later. Proto-Semitic 
is merely postulated based on presuppositions I believe are in error,...."

   Now let us take just two examples from Biblical Hebrew:

         1. F. S. nouns in construct , e.g. Dodah  --   Dodat-YYY;  same  F. 
noun in declension, e.g. Dodati, Dodatkha  etc. . The question is where did 
the "T" come from?

    The  final "T'" which was a marker of the F.S., was lost in BH in the 
regular form and returned only in the construct and declension. This happenes 
to be preserved in classical Arabic, but lost in many other Semitic 
languages, including also, by the way, in colloquial Arabic.

          2. Another noun : "Bat" , plural "Banot"  . The questiom is where 
did the "N" come from? And, to contintue with the same noun, if one looks at 
the declension in the MT, "Bitti" "Bittkha" etc.  why is there  Dagesh forte, 
for emphasis, in pronounciation,  in the "T".

         The "N" was part of the regular noun *Bnt-- compare with the Arabic 
"Bint"--, but dropped off in BH. However  it returned in the  BH plural, as 
well as in the declensions, where the emphasis in the pronounciation 
compensated for the lost and assimilated missing letter.

     All Semitic langauges share many features. It was therefore clear that 
they are all connected , and go back to a common original language, or 
proto-Semitic.

        ..."Now I know that you disagree with much of what I claim."... [Karl]

         It so happenes, Karl, that I appreciate and respect your method. It 
also happened that I agreed with some of your opinions and  stated  so  
publicly on this list. But not with all of them.

       Uri 

 

From: "Uri Hurwitz" 

> 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
> 
> 


                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Better first dates. More second dates. Yahoo! Personals 
>From leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il  Mon Apr  4 14:24:50 2005
Return-Path: <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from ismss-1.biu.ac.il (ismss.biu.ac.il [132.70.84.150])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D6A44C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon,  4 Apr 2005 14:24:49 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from xp ([132.70.102.59]unverified) by ismss-1.biu.ac.il with 
        InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:25:15 +0300
Message-ID: <016201c5394b$d121a260$10664684@xp>
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <20050404015127.0C8CE6F027 AT ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 7
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 21:19:16 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-imss-version: 2.024
X-imss-result: Passed
X-imss-scores: Clean:99.90000 C:2 M:3 S:5 R:5
X-imss-settings: Baseline:3 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.5000 0.5000)
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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, 04 Apr 2005 18:24:50 -0000


----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> And there are plenty of people who claim that the text, analysing it
linguistically, indicates while a particular woman was meant, that there was
no indication that it had to be a woman who was alive at the time Isaiah
said it.

If so, Karl, what significance would it have had to Ahaz?

> In this I'm reminded of the prophesy concerning Josiah in 1 Kings 13:2.
>From the immediate text, one would conclude that this Josiah was already
born, but it wasn't until centuries later that that prophesy was fulfilled.
>

Karl,
The difference is that 1 Kings 13 was written either during the time of
Josiah or later, and so the author could put a "prophecy" about Josiah in
the anonymous "man of God"s mouth. Isaiah 7 was NOT written by Matthew.



> Therefore, if Isaiah was prophesying in the same manner as the prophesy
above, there is no reason to insist that the woman be alive at that time.
And that she was called "the virgin" means that it is a sign, because
virgins don't get pregnant and give birth.
> Karl W. Randolph.

But she is NOT called "the virgin". She is called "the young woman".

Yigal