Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> 
> On 11/27/05, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no QN in 11a.
> >
> > Puh-leeze! Don't be such a nitpicker!
> 
> The fact that this was your intention became
> clear to me after I sent my response.

Why should I even respond when you know 
my thoughts better than I? I still don't 
remember that intention.

> ....  I still think
> it is wrong to so divide words from their suffixes,
> especially where in GZLYW the suffix also
> conveys the plural number of the word.
> 
> > Better make a translation of all three verses,
> > as it appears that you understand several of
> > the words differently than I. If so, that
> > explains why I have trouble following your
> > argument in this message.
> 
> To take up the JPS translation and adapt it:
> (10b) He compassed him about, He cared for him,
> He kept him as the apple of His eye.
> (11) like the Eagle that stirreth up its nest,
> hovereth over its young,
> He shall spread His wings and take him,
> Bear him upon His pinion.
> 
> The JPS evidently interprets 11c-d to refer to the
> eagle still, but I think it is best to see it as a
> reference to God/nation while the image of God
> as eagle is fresh in our minds.  The English
> allows us to differentiate between the eagle and
> God through the use of the masculine pronoun
> (his, its) but this is just a "treat" (for good or for
> bad) in English and not part of the original.
> 
> Perhaps it would help to understand how you
> translate the verses.
> 
Later. That's why I asked the question.

> > There are examples of lamed-he verbs with
> > nouns from the same root lacking any
> > indication of the he, such as CW command
> > from the same root as CWH to command.
> 
> The above is practically an hapax legomenon.  It
> is used nine times but in 8/9 of the cases it is
> apparently used in a phrase to describe something
> nonsensical, but even if not, definitely not something
> from which we cannot ascertain the meaning.  In the
> last case, its meaning is not used in parallelism, nor
> is its meaning clearly a "command" and in fact, it
> has been interpreted to derive either from a lamed-
> aleph root CW) or to be a phonetic variant of $W).
> To add to all the above, the root CWH is used as a
> Piel, not a Qal.  Do you have any clear example of a
> Qal verb, with a lamed-he/yod where the first two
> letters of the root are used as an independent
> noun?
> 
> Yitzhak Sapir

I'm away from my primary computer with its 
dictionary and other study materials, so right 
off the top of my head I recall also QW where 
its verb is QWH. And where it is used in the 
verses in Isaiah in connection with CW it has 
a clear meaning. That passage warns people 
to watch out for those who will change God's 
Torah into merely a list of lines and commands, 
lines not to cross and command after command. 
True, this is not a common construct, but not 
vague nor hard to understand.

Karl W. Randolph.

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