Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Herman:

It is a good thing that at times we can agree to disagree, 
as there is not enough known, and the disagreement may 
eventually point to a resolution.

As for Proverbs 1:19, I had read it as a compound verb, 
and when I asked others, they had independently of me 
come to the same conclusion. But even if you are right, 
it is still improperly pointed, as the second BC( should 
not be pointed in the pausal vocalization, as context, 
grammar, poetic construct, meaning and sentence 
structure together indicate that it is the subject of the 
second half of the verse, not the end of the first.

I don't think my distinction is actually between written and 
spoken language, rather between the written consonants, 
and the written vowels. Whereas I recognize the written 
consonants as authoritative, the written vowels I relegate 
to the level of ancient commentary on the text: a product of 
tradition and for the most part an accurate explanation of 
meaning, but occasionally wrong.

And as one who has memorized whole chapters of 
Tanakh, I agree with the Chinese.  ;-)

Karl W. Randolph.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>

> Obviously, "lectio difficilior potior" is used only when it does not
> lead to bizarre readings. However, imho. Zech 6,8 is an excellent
> example where it is indeed a good criterion.
> As for Prov 1,19 you refer to, there is no need to change anything
> there, because the second בצע there already is a segholate noun, be it
> in pausal vocalisation; it's not a verb. Note also the place of the
> accent. (^ under the first syll.) Just as we have ארץ aretz (in pausa)
> and ארץ eretz.
> 
> BTW I think your distinction between written and spoken language is a
> little artificial. Imagine Hebrew happened to have used a totally
> different writing system (hieroglyphs, cuneiform, or an alefbet with a
> lot more matres lectionis), and we would see all the vowel in writings
> in every type of text, I guess then suddenly the vowel signs are part
> of the inspired text?
> I know you consider the Hebrew alefbet to be exclusively designed for
> Hebrew; I guess our basic suppositions diverge so much that we won't
> convince each other. Which is good, it would be dull if everyone was
> of the same opinion all the time. I hope you agree with me on the
> Proverbs verse, though.
> 
> And I disagree with the Chinese ;)
> 
> שלום
> Herman

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