Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David P Donnelly <davedonnelly1 AT juno.com>]

In an earlier post today, 
I had quoted a grammar rule [e.g. Note] that was posted on “Hebrew for
Christians ” at the link below:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/
Click on [Grammar]
Click on [Unit Two: The Vowels]
Click on [A-Type Vowels]

The Rule [e.g. Note] said:
>>>
The Chateph Patach is sometimes called a “half vowel” and is the shortest
of all vowels: 
it can only appear under the guttural letters (and is usually part of the
following syllable). 
>>>
The above Rule [e.g. Note] is definitely an error, 
as Peter Kirk has listed 166 cases [160 excluding Aramaic]
in which a hatef patah is found under a non-guttural letter in the
Westminster Leningrad Codex text.

In the first four cases that Peter listed,
a hatef-patah is found under three different non-guttural letters. 

A second grammar rule [e.g. Note] that I posted was also erroneous:
>>>
The Chateph Segol is sometimes called a “half vowel” and is the shortest
of all vowels: 
it can only appear under the guttural letters. 
>>>
My apologies for posting these two  erroneous Hebrew Grammar rules [e.g.
Notes].

Dave Donnelly
>From Christopher.Heard AT pepperdine.edu  Tue Sep  6 19:17:21 2005
Return-Path: <Christopher.Heard AT pepperdine.edu>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mercury.pepperdine.edu (mercury.pepperdine.edu [137.159.8.35])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18D44C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue,  6 Sep 2005 19:17:20 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from mal-xconn1.pepperdine.edu (mal-xconn1.pepperdine.edu
        [137.159.8.42])
        by mercury.pepperdine.edu (Pep-6.40o) with ESMTP id QAA13376
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mal-xconn1.pepperdine.edu with Internet Mail Service 
(5.5.2657.72)
        id <R48LNC62>; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:17:05 -0700
Received: from [137.159.49.100] ([137.159.49.100]) by
        mal-xconn2.pepperdine.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange
        Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72)
        id RVAXGDF1; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:17:17 -0700
From: "Heard, Christopher" <Christopher.Heard AT pepperdine.edu>
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734)
In-Reply-To: <20050906220157.7304F1F50B1 AT ws1-2.us4.outblaze.com>
References: <20050906220157.7304F1F50B1 AT ws1-2.us4.outblaze.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <1C607EC8-1343-4DA2-A8D0-8E30025AF101 AT pepperdine.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:17:13 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734)
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] physical attributes
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
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: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:17:21 -0000

On Sep 6, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Karl Randolph wrote:
> As for the use of the word CLM to indicate
> corporality of the ancient concept of God,
> there is reason to doubt: for one, the basic
> meaning of CLM is "shadow", i.e. something that
> represents but does not match the object that
> casts the shadow. Even what it is made of can
> be completely different. When it refers to the
> "shadow" of an object, that "shadow" will never
> be mistaken for the real McCoy, e.g. the gold
> rats and buboes of the Philistines in 1 Samuel,
> it was clear that these were not the buboes and
> rats, rather just representations thereof.
> Therefore, to say that man is made in the CLM
> of God does not automatically assume that God
> has physical corporality, strictly from a
> linguistic analysis.

Karl,

While I tend to agree with you rather more than with Kevin on the  
issues of "the Hebrews and abstract vs. concrete thought" that have  
been going on this thread (please forgive the poor attempt at a "tag  
line"), I think you also are hanging more on CLM than the word can  
hold up. Traditional lexicography recognizes two roots spelled CLM,  
CLM I "image" and CLM II "shadow, shadowy thing." If this arguable  
distinction is followed, CLM II is solidly attested for biblical  
Hebrew only in two verses from the Psalms. If you are going to try to  
make "shadow"--attested only twice--the "_basic meaning_," and then  
try to interpret the more commonly attested sense in light of that so- 
called "basic meaning," then you really must _justify_ your claim  
that "shadow" is the "basic meaning" of CLM, and that this "basic  
meaning" then carries the semantic-conceptual freight that you  
attribute to it (above) into other senses. If you want to be  
persuasive, you can't just _posit_ this, but must _demonstrate_ it.

--
R. Christopher Heard
Assistant Professor of Religion
Seaver Fellow in Religion
Pepperdine University
Malibu, California 90263-4352
Professional Web Page: http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/cheard
Internet Resource Index: http://www.iTanakh.org
Personal Web Page: http://www.heardworld.com