Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Ps 25:17

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ps 25:17
  • Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:03:08 +0100

On 26/09/2005 02:18, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:

Dear Peter,

The reason it's not reduced is that it bears the accent on the first syllable. ...


No, at least not in BHS, where the accent mark is firmly under the resh which is the secodn syllable. Anyway, this argument confuses cause and effect.

... Accordance parses it as construct.


Don't expect me to believe this on the basis of an authority. Accordance (actually the WTS databse, I think) simply follows traditional interpretations in such cases where the actual form is ambiguous. But I accept James Price's argument that the accentuation suggests a construct form - at least, that that was probably the understanding of the Masoretes and of the pronunciation tradtion which they wrote down.

I note that LXX (24:17) has hAI QLIYEIS THS KARDIAS MOU EPLATUNQHSAN, "the troubles of my heart were widened", which also supports the construct interpretation. This agreement between LXX and the Masoretes suggests that this is the original meaning - or at least a very ancient understanding.

...



HH: This form does not reduce when it's construct elsewhere in the OT.


Where elsewhere? Well, I seem to have accepted too easily Mark's assertion that

The only two other times
that this exact form ZaROTH is used in the Hebrew Bible (Job 5:19 and Psalm
71:20, see also Psalm 46:2; Deut. 31:17 & 21) the form is definitely NOT
construct.

For he has missed Psalm 31:8 which I think must be construct, also Psa 71:20, Prov 21:23, Isaiah 65:16. And I accept that the first qamats in CARAH does not seem to be reduced in any of its inflected forms where reduction would be expected, including singular constructs and before personal suffixes. So it seems that this noun has an irregular infectional paradigm, and the lack of reduction in Psalm 25:17 is not an argument that it is absolute - formally, apart from the argument from accents, it is ambiguous.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page