Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

   The primary meaning of the root in Arabic seems to be 'forbidden' etc., 
and derived from this is  'holy', in the sense that something belongs, or is 
devoted to the divine,  and is either not for  the use of ordinary humans;  
or they can use it  by making special preparation for it. Therefore, as 
someone indicated before, there is a semantic similarity with the Hebrew QD&. 
where the original meaning is 'separate'.
 
  Both the Heb. and Moabite XRM fit into the above mentioned pattern.
 
  Uri
 
."...Think of the Arabic name for the Temple Mount: Haram 
esh-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary. I don't know how haram came to mean 
forbidden food. Perhaps for just that reason: something that is "haram" is 
forbidden - originally for "secular" use, then, by expansion, for any use. 
Words often take on opposite meanings: the Muslim version of "kosher", i.e. 
"permitted food" is "halal", which in Hebrew is the opposite of QD$.

Yigal "




                
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.  
>From yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com  Sun Oct 23 10:28:39 2005
Return-Path: <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.204])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9724C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:28:38 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 13so510411nzp
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 07:28:38 -0700 
(PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        
b=rU3UXjj+L1yvb7Kv6BfT+KWvce9UJygkYPA3TOoUtv1R4A15tNqPQXU95H2lvVMUaX+ID5ITpPLZvaE8UEYfmO2UGNDFcvOb28erRcnhFPZ3D/azvNj6+PENE1JWtl2sZcvv1thK2pWXmE0RqG6E9yAVuXWBwzfv9Pu0azcdxFo=
Received: by 10.36.71.3 with SMTP id t3mr4888591nza;
        Sun, 23 Oct 2005 07:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.59.14 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 07:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e6ea6c000510230728j116e8263l55ada9a5c95d08d5 AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:28:38 +0200
From: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
To: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>
In-Reply-To: <m1EP5s2-000GhjC AT exc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <m1ENYPs-000GhjC AT exc.com> <43481C65.8000301 AT qaya.org>
        <m1EP5s2-000GhjC AT exc.com>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Initial "Beged Kefet" consonants always have a...
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: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:28:39 -0000

On 10/11/05, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
> >>It's not a prosodic rule.  It's not hard to find examples in Tanach of
> >>the same prosody with different trope types, and, hence, different
> >>BEGED KEFET behavior.  The Masoretes invented this arbitrary
> >>inter-word rule (and, actually, for all we know, invented the entire
> >>BEGED KEFET rule).
> >
> >[...]
> >word within a short phrase. And there is surely pre-Masoretic evidence
> >for the different pronunciations of begadkepat letters in
> >transliterations into Greek, Latin etc.
>
> There is considerable pre-masoreteic evidence, and none of it confirms
> the Masoretic Beged Kefet rules.  I go through the evidence in great
> detail in my NYU book (_In the Beginning: A Short History of the
> Hebrew Language), which is available from most libraries.  "Rebekka"
> demonstrates well, as the Masoretes recorded two syllables and a /v/
> for the second consonant, while the LXX gives us three syllabes and a
> /b/ for the second consonant.  "Milcah" shows the same pattern, with
> /k/ according to the Masoretes but /x/ according to the LXX.

I was thinking of these examples.  Why do you assume that if two names
have the same form (mishqal) in the MT, they necessarily had the same
form a few (or more than a few) centuries earlier.  Two possibilities can
derive from this.  1) The original form was entirely lost in Hebrew and
merged with the second form.  2) The original form was maintained in
some words.  If the second, could we not suggest the form of Rebeccah
might earlier on have been the same as "m:sillFh" (Isaiah 40:3) or
"c:biyyFh" (Song of Songs 3:5)?  It's possible of course that different
communities had different pronunciations of words, but I think this is
less likely in the case of popular names.

Yitzhak Sapir