Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

If memory serves me correctly, my hebrew lecturer (Dr Davila) was 
a supporter of this kind of theory. He used to refer at lot to 
theoretical proto-sinaitic forms in his explanations of peculiarities 
in the language.


-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Karl Randolph
Sent: Mon 10/10/2005 5:14 PM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] consonant vowel order of )EHYEH & YAHWEH
 
Peter:

To try to test my theory that Hebrew originally had only a 
CV structure, and those at the end of words were usually 
unstressed, I tried reading out loud in Hebrew adding an 
unstressed "e" (short e) at the ends of words that did not 
end in vowels, and the stresses almost automatically fell 
on what is now the ending syllable. Now it could be that 
that is just idiosyncratic to me, but I found it was a result 
that I did not expect.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
> On 09/10/2005 02:48, Matthew Guest wrote:
>  
>... All of the words should
> be stressed on the latter syllable.
> 
>...
> 
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From VadimCherny AT mail.ru  Mon Oct 10 14:56:44 2005
Return-Path: <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mx3.mail.ru (mx3.mail.ru [194.67.23.149])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB17D4C006
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:56:44 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [80.90.237.2] (portR139 helo=athlon64x2)
        by mx3.mail.ru with smtp
        id 1EP2pH-000Ajw-00; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:56:43 +0400
Message-ID: <006c01c5cdcc$5b24fba0$1210000a@athlon64x2>
From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
To: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>,
        "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <005001c5cd09$5f242050$1210000a@athlon64x2>
        <002f01c5cd5f$3ca28c00$f39d1bac@xp>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:56:42 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
        reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Subject: [b-hebrew] Leviral marriage - prepositions & grammar
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: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:56:44 -0000

>>>>> Ruth 4:13 VAYYIQAX BO`AZ ET RWT VATT:HIY-LW = and Boaz took Ruth and
>>>>> she became to him.
>>>>
>>>> you know, she did not actually become his wife
>>>
>>> WHAT? Of course she did. Look at the next word: Le'i$$ah. Look also at
>>> vss. 10-11. You might not like the idea of "buying" a wife, but wife she
>>> was.
>>
>> It's odd to hear such things from you, Yigal. Boaz took Ruth to restore
>> the seed of Elimelech (4:6). That was a standard procedure regarding a
>> childless wife of one's brother. It wasn't marriage proper. Buying that
>> obligation is not prescribed in Torah, but was apparently practiced.
>>
> Come on, Vadim. Gen. 24:67 uses exactly the same terminology to describe
> Isaac "taking" Rebekah. Was she also "not a real wife"?

This becomes a very interesting question. Why, indeed, Deut25, Ruth4, and
Gen24 haves l'isha, while, for example, Gen25:1 has simply isha? Both Deut25
and Gen25 have lkh. Is the difference isha/ l'isha incidental? I don't know.
Some things may be remarked upon, though. Deut25 emphasizes that the brother
should take l'isha only if brothers lived together. Why the qualification?
Even a distant brother might equally well restore the seed. Living together
or not was, as I understand, irrelevant for inheritance. I think, the
obligation was applicable only for live-ins to avoid the difficult issue of
marriage. Hebrews were monogamous (yes, I know, Abraham and Jacob...) and I
don't expect Deut25 to command polygamy. Rather, the leviral marriage was
"like a marriage": a lonely intercourse to restore the seed, and then
support of the relatives living together. If a distant brother would have
entered leviral marriage, that would bring the issue of "marriage or like
marriage" to the fore. With live-ins, the issue was sidestepped. Just a
thought.

What could be wrong with marrying Rebekka? Isaac, an important son of a
wealthy man Abraham, married her when he was forty. Likely, she was not his
first wife; recall how lightly he took her to the tent of his mother. When
Jacob took Rachel for a second wife, that was also l'isha. Could the writer
call them "like wives"?

Semantic difference between isha and l'isha might or might not be there.

Using l with isha is irrelevant to hih verb (someone suggested idiomatic
meaning of hih l, to become). The writer calls Rebekka l'isha whether with
hih (Gen24:67) or without (Gen25:20).

Could it be simply an idiom 'verb lo l'isha'? Something like, "gave her to
him for a wife." I can try to see a remote sense in such idiomatic usage:
lo, 'to him,' is a bit of distancing, and thus 'for a wife' instead of
'wife,' a parallel bit of distancing. Not quite sure, but possibly something
along these lines.


Vadim Cherny