Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

yep, looks like a qal passive participle alright.  Yeah the qibbuts is 
replacing the shureq as you thought. Another good example is Duet 1:15 
WLYDU`IYM, 2 Kings 5:1 WN:&U` PANIYM.  1 Kings 1:49 looks like one as well.
VAYFQUMW
--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> In Lev 21:18 there is a list of men who may not approach 
> Yahweh. One of them is XRM with a qamets beneath the X and 
> a qibbuts beneath the R (let us say - kharum). Is this the 
> qal masculine singular passive participle of XRM? Are the 
> quibbuts and the shureq interchangeable for the qal 
> passive participle? Are there other cases where this is 
> so? 
> 
> Jack Tladatsi 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From kwrandolph AT email.com  Fri Oct 28 16:44:43 2005
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT email.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com
        (webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.67])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF24F4C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:44:42 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from unknown (unknown [192.168.9.180])
        by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
        C38A91800408
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:44:41 +0000 
(GMT)
X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.49)
        by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 28 Oct 2005 20:44:40 -0000
Received: by ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
        id BA20483C0A; Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:44:33 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:44:32 -0500
Received: from [71.133.108.184] by ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com with http for
        kwrandolph AT email.com; Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:44:32 -0500
X-Originating-Ip: 71.133.108.184
X-Originating-Server: ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com
Message-Id: <20051028204433.BA20483C0A AT ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ayin and Ghayin
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: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:44:43 -0000

Yitzhak:

First, you are the only person I have interacted with who=20
makes the claim that "Biblical" Hebrew includes the=20
Masoretic points. Everyone else, starting with my first year=20
teacher, who had anything to say on the issue, claimed=20
that the Masoretic points are post Biblical. Your argument,=20
carried to its logical conclusion, would claim that the DSS=20
Bible scrolls, because they do not have the points, are not=20
"Biblical" Hebrew. Another example, when the DSS=20
exhibit was in our local museum, there was a side exhibit=20
of a Torah scroll from a synagog, a manuscript, opened to=20
a passage in Leviticus; it, too, was written without points:=20
as I read your claim, that Torah scroll is not in Biblical=20
Hebrew.

The way I was taught is that the Masoretic points are=20
merely study aids, and that the authentic way to read=20
Tanakh, i.e. the way it was read in Biblical times, is=20
without points. Hence synagog scrolls lack points.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
>=20
> Hello Karl,
>=20
>...=20
> > No. What I've noticed is that that spelling is somewhat
> > different from the grammar you learned your elementary
> > Hebrew from, but I have read plenty of examples of
> > spelling consistant with both Gezar Calendar and Siloam
> > Pool inscriptions in the Bible
>=20
> Can you cite a place where the spelling )$ is used for man in the Bible?
> Or H) for "he"?
>=20
I just checked photos I have of both documents: where is=20
H) used for "he" on either document? Does )$ on the=20
Siloam stone refer to "man" or "fire" of an iron tool? Of=20
course you can't leave out the )$ in 2 Samuel 14:19.

> > Just as I expected, you haven't put in the time, you don't know
> > Biblical Hebrew that well.
>=20
> Biblical Hebrew is not defined as "Hebrew without vowels as given in the
> MT."  I don't claim to know Biblical Hebrew, and while I do not "claim it=
", it
> seems to me that I probably have a better understanding of Biblical Hebrew
> than you do, as practically the entire world, except you, defines Biblical
> Hebrew.  Reading the Bible through nor reading it without vowels is not a
> prescription for learning Biblical Hebrew except for your own eccentric
> definition of Biblical Hebrew, which seems to be shared by noone else.
>=20
See above.

>...=20
> The Bible uses many expressions to describe the different times
> of the day. Why never this particular term?
>=20
If there is no need to, why should it?

> > > ... I am not at odds with tradition,
> > > as you have suggested I am.
> > >
> > Where did I ever make such a claim?
>=20
> You wrote, among other places,  "It is your different set of
> presuppositions that makes you value cognate language
> study and diss the Biblical record."  Hopefully the links
> here provided will prevent future questions such as this one.
>=20
Granted what you do here is the same as others: the=20
Biblical record indicates that Moses wrote Torah around=20
1400+ BC. There is no record of him using a different=20
alphabet than what we use today, other than a different=20
font face. You diss that record in favor of Ugaritic. The=20
reason you do is because of philosophical presupposition=20
that not everyone on this list shares, which is why the=20
history of Hebrew and the philosophical presuppositions=20
that lie behind each "history" have been deemed off topic=20
for this discussion forum by our esteemed moderators. I=20
concur with their decision.

Now if you had some documents connecting the two ...

> > > The unpointed text is not "Biblical Hebrew."  It is "half" of
> > > Biblical Hebrew.  The other half is the Massorah.
> > >
> > The DSS show that the unpointed text *is* Biblical Hebrew.
>=20
> Can you cite an uncontroversial example?
>=20
See above.

> > Good. Now could you read the whole Tanakh using that font?
>=20
> Yes.
>=20
> > Now go back, finish reading Tanakh, through Chronicles,
> > then try it again at least once this time without points,
> > read the whole magilla, and for fun read the time without
> > points using the font found on the Gezar Calendar or
> > Jehoash inscription. That should be a good beginning
> > to learning Biblical Hebrew.
>=20
Since I wrote the above, I realized that when you read the=20
text with points, the points often mask spelling variations=20
found in the consonantal text. So a Hireq can mask the=20
fact that a masculine plural sometimes lacks a Yod, and=20
you overlook that lack. But when you read an unpointed=20
text, you need to recognize that variant spelling for what=20
it is and means. Other examples include that the Hiphil=20
often lacks an internal Yod and a Waw can appear or=20
disappear separated by only a verse or two in the same=20
word. Thus the Siloam inscription contains no surprises,=20
no spellings I had not seen elsewhere before.

> Rather, how about you answer me two questions, which I
> think may advance this discussion:
>=20
> 1) How is it that English originally had two different letters
> for the two sounds represented by "th" as in "loath"/"loathe"
> and yet, lost them and they are now represented by a
> single symbol (ie, "th") for several hundred years.

The printing press. As long as books were all written by=20
hand, the letters remained in the English alphabet. But=20
when presses made on the continent were imported, they=20
lacked all the English letters. I don't know why the English=20
lacked the gumption to add missing English letters to their=20
type trays, instead for a while they used "y" for thorn, then=20
later changed all to "th". Thus it was explained in a history=20
of printing that I read.

>...
> 2) You have evidently claimed that many words were
> influenced by different words in Aramaic, so much so that
> a whole new phoneme (&in) developed to represent some
> words so influenced.
>=20
Do you have any evidence against it?
>=20
> Now, first, in light of what you write above, can you either provide
> evidence that Aramaic indeed "bifurcated" sin/shin?
>=20
I have already indicated two, but let me repeat: 1) the=20
number of times that sin and shin make phonemic=20
difference is very rare, no more than for other letters=20
where the same spelling has drastically different=20
meanings, and 2) there are a number of words, where=20
they are spelled once with a sin, another time with a=20
shin yet the same word with the same meaning, or one=20
derivative with a sin and another with a shin. The latter=20
indicates that both were the same phoneme, hence most=20
likely had the same pronunciation as well.

With evidence that they were originally the same letter, the=20
question becomes, what caused the bifurcation? If it was=20
not Aramaic, then what? The time line is right for Aramaic.

> Second, it would seem to be the case that even if Hebrew originally
> had one phoneme, but if it borrowed a great many words from cognate
> languages, then the etymology of those words is no longer necessarily
> related by root to one another and they may be etymologically unrelated.
> That is, we still have to conclude that words do not necessarily have
> "one meaning" as you have described your assumption earlier:
>=20
Do I need to go back to linguistics 101? Apparently so. In=20
English there are three words, "two", "too" and "to". All=20
three have exactly the same pronunciation. If they were=20
spelled phonetically, they would be given the same=20
spelling. Is there a native speaker of English who would=20
claim that they are not three different words and have no=20
trouble recognizing which word is being used by its=20
context? I know of none. All languages have words like=20
this. They are rare, but they exist. Biblical Hebrew is no=20
different. Except with Biblical Hebrew, the ancients=20
recorded only the consonants, so where vowels made=20
phonemic difference, they were lost. Further, there are=20
rules of derivation that sometimes causes words from=20
different roots to converge to the same written form. That=20
does not negate my working hypothesis that in general,=20
words have but one meaning, sometimes the meaning is=20
broadly defined, sometimes narrowly, seldom the same=20
way as a corresponding word in a different, even cognate=20
language. Similarly, a translator may use two, three or=20
more words to translate one word, but that, too, does not=20
negate my hypothesis. That's just part of the mechanics of=20
translation.

Further, I look for the function, most lexicographers look at=20
the form. Often one function acts the same way no matter=20
which form it is in, which context it works on. Looking at=20
function often automatically brings out a single meaning.

> Yitzhak Sapir

In closing, go back, read Tanakh cover to cover. Read it=20
without points cover to cover so you get used to alternate=20
spellings. Only after that look at documents as the Siloam=20
inscription and then show me how it differs from Biblical=20
examples.

Karl W. Randolph.

--=20
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/