Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Yitzhak:

Really, you shouldn't show off your ignorance like 
that. This answer feels like second semester first 
year Biblical Hebrew, not a discussion among 
scholars.

L( is listed in the dictionary as L((, but as 
typical of double-ayin verbs only one is written. 
It means "to belittle".

QBR you recognized.

Z is the only word in this inscription that is not 
attested to in Tanakh. From the context it is 
recognizable as ZH. Probably a dialectal variance.

LHSR infinitive Hiphil verb, found in dictionaries 
as SWR. Many Hiphils in Tanakh do not have the 
middle yod, so that lack here is no surprise.

H(DW prefixed H for the definite article. (D is 
a noun. W suffix masculine possessive. From the 
context, it points back to Z.

DMYT from the lamed-he verb DMH, normally 
conjugated.

LMRT prefixed L, the noun means "bitterness".

That you couldn't recognize something as simple as 
this inscription calls into question all your other 
claims. To me it looks as if you need to go back to 
school and take first year Biblical Hebrew. Then 
you need to read Tanakh cover to cover, at least 
two or three times. Then, maybe then, you'll be 
ready to discuss intelligently on this list.

Your argument seems to be that because you have 
studied Ugaritic, that qualifies you as a Hebrew 
scholar. That you could not understand a simple 
inscription shows how little Hebrew you know.

Karl W. Randolph.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> 
> On 2/9/06, Karl Randolph wrote:
> 
> > > 5) What happens in your story if the photo is found to be a photo
> > > downloaded off the net and one cannot prove it was actually the
> > > bad camera that shot the photo, so the photo could be a
> > > forgery?
> 
> > I previously saw photos of this same stone in
> > books, but linked to the online image because 1) it
> > is available for all to look at it and 2) this is a
> > better quality image than the photos I saw in
> > books.
> >
> > You are grasping at straws again.
> 
> When you went back to the other line of argument, abandoning this
> one about the Scandinavian stone, I thought you saw how wrong you
> were.  Obviously, you think this is still valid evidence.  Since you
> mention it from time to time, could you please validate this piece
> of evidence?
> 
> What about points 1 - 4?
> 
> #1 - how can W in H(DW be waw possessive?  What would it mean?
> "his ..."?
> #2 - how can L( QBR Z LHSR H(DW DMYT LMRT
>   לע קבר ז להסר העדו דמית למרת be said to be 
> recognizably Biblical
> Hebrew?  I think the only word there that is actually to be found in
> the Bible is QBR קבר.  I could give you examples of Ugaritic that
> are much more easily readable and recognizable than this.
> #3 - The letters you interpret as the Ls, Ms, B, and Z are not Proto-
> Sinaitic (for the letters you specify).  Others, like Y or Q don't look
> the the Proto-Sinaitic, but look like the South Arabic letters.  Others,
> like the first Ayin have a missing dot in the middle which is much
> later than Proto-Sinaitic.  The second Ayin is a very bad circle, and
> both Ayins miss the dot inside (which is a feature of proto-Canaanite,
> proto-Sinaitic even has an oval shape for the eye).
> #4 - Why should we believe you can tell Proto-Sinaitic from anything
> else when you say yourself you haven't seen proto-Sinaitic inscriptions
> to satisfactory quality?
> 
> And as for #5, the fact that you saw it in a book doesn't matter.  I don't
> believe everything I read in books, and we can't look it up in the book
> because you won't tell us which book.  We don't know who the author
> is or what he says about the inscription.  Perhaps you don't even
> remember.  Perhaps it was long after you saw it in the book that you
> saw it in the internet site.  In this case, perhaps you are just confusing
> similar or even not so similar inscriptions.  Your say-so that this is a
> proto-Sinaitic inscription isn't very useful.
> 
> No matter how much this Scandinavian stone weighs, it is also a very
> big straw.  It turns out your entire theory of CV pronunciation is based
> among other things on a stone from Scandinavia.
> 
> Yitzhak Sapir

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