Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

My question is two fold in Psalm 45:7 K:S:`A:KA E:LOHIYM

 the tipha under the alef of ' E:LOHIYM does that represent a pause?

So is it, "your throne, O God is forever and ever?"

"Or can one get away with Your throne is God, forever and ever?"

Second question is YISS:R"NIY in Isaiah 8:11, why is there a dagesh in the 
samech?  And if this thing is imperfect why isn't there a dagesh in the yod?  
 Looks to me like the yod there is part of the root, not part of a vav 
conversive.  Looks like a Piel but I guess it is not.



--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net
>From kwrandolph AT email.com  Mon Oct 31 10:29:50 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 DDE254C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:29:49 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from unknown (unknown [192.168.9.180])
        by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
        65E111800498
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:29:48 +0000 
(GMT)
X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.50)
        by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 31 Oct 2005 15:29:47 -0000
Received: by ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
        id 39725164278; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:29:47 +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: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:29:46 -0500
Received: from [71.133.108.184] by ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com with http for
        kwrandolph AT email.com; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:29:46 -0500
X-Originating-Ip: 71.133.108.184
X-Originating-Server: ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com
Message-Id: <20051031152947.39725164278 AT ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Lev 21:18 - Passive Participle
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, 31 Oct 2005 15:29:50 -0000

Peter:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
>=20
> On 30/10/2005 01:27, Karl Randolph wrote:
>=20
> > Peter:
> >
> > This brings up the question which trumps what? Does internal=20
> > evidence trump cognate languages, or the other way around?
> >
> > If within Biblical Hebrew there is only one meaning evidenced for=20
> > a lexeme, ...
> >
>=20
> There is no easy answer to your question. But there is an easy=20
> answer to the question which is in fact relevant here: Does absence=20
> of internal evidence trump evidence from cognate languages, or the=20
> other way around? I don't see any way in which absence of evidence=20
> can trump evidence!
>=20
There are times when absence of evidence is a lack, i.e.=20
that a certain phenomenon existed but that we have yet to=20
find evidence for it, and other times when it is evidence of=20
lack, i.e. that the looked for phenomenon was never there=20
in the first place.=20

This is one of the cases IMO of the latter.

> ...
>=20
> > (Further, the two Arabic roots look as if they could have come=20
> > originally from one root that first became dialectic differences,=20
> > that later became phonemic.)
> >
> >
>=20
> All I can say is that there is no evidence that such processes have=20
> ever happened in the Semitic languages, whose root structure is=20
> extremely stable over millennia.
>=20
I had previously pointed to evidence that such processes=20
possibly happened: where it has happened in other=20
languages (from historical records), mechanisms of how it=20
happened in those languages, and the clues that change=20
left as it occurred. Then I looked at patterns within Semitic=20
language family and see the same clues of change. This=20
is where we disagree, and the lack of evidence (in the first=20
sense above) prevents resolution of that disagreement.

> > The only way to resolve this disagreement is to find documents=20
> > that show a development of Hebrew indicating that it originally=20
> > had the extra sounds. So far there has been no sign of those=20
> > documents. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
> >
> >
> >
> No, Karl, I will not agree to disagree, although I will not pursue=20
> a pointless discussion for long. There is ample evidence available,=20
> from cognate languages and from transliterations, for this=20
> development of Hebrew, even though it is not in actual Hebrew=20
> documents because the Hebrew alphabet never made this particular=20
> distinction.
>=20
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/

What I have repeatedly claimed is that lack of evidence in=20
Biblical Hebrew should often be understood in the second=20
sense above, whereas almost universally it is understood=20
in the first sense. This is my claim concerning the number=20
of phonemes is Biblical Hebrew. This forms the one=20
element of many of my disagreements with BDB and=20
other modern lexicographers.

In this particular example, I agree with Jack that there is=20
only one meaning for XRM evidenced in Biblical Hebrew.=20
This forms a lack of evidence in the second sense above=20
for multiple roots. Does this lack of evidence trump the=20
evidence from Arabic? I say "Yes."

(Incidentally, I think there is a possible resolution between=20
his and my understandings of the meaning. More later.)

I think a further discussion on XRM is pointless as long as=20
we do not agree on the nature of "lack of evidence", and=20
like you, I do not wish to drag it out where resolution will=20
most likely not occur. It would not be fair to others on this=20
mailing list.

Karl W. Randolph.

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