Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Yitzhak:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> 
> On 2/10/06, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Karl, please stop with the personal attacks.  They
> don't get you any closer to convincing anybody.
> 
Oh, so you can dish out personal attacks, in the 
form of snide remarks and straw man arguments, but 
when I take you to task personally for your evident 
lack of knowledge of Hebrew, you complain. When I 
was young, we had a special scorn for those who 
would dish it out, but couldn't take it.

> And this isn't a discussion among scholars.  I'm
> not a scholar.  You're not a scholar.  A scholar
> carries with it the meaning of having attended
> school or being guided by a teacher.
> 
You have a predecessor in the form of Humpty Dumpty 
in "Alice through the Looking Glass" who defined 
words just the way he wanted to. If that's the way 
you want to define "scholar", it's not worth 
arguing over.

> Now what does "Belittle this grave to turn away
> ???? you were like bitterness" mean?  It seems
> like a bunch of words that you grouped together.
> 
What sort of weird "translation" is this?

ZH following a noun does not modify the noun, 
except when both have a definite article. ZH often 
stands alone to refer to "this thing", "this 
action" or other similar use. Pictured on the stone 
is music and dance, then the statement below states 
"a grave belittles this" which, in context, refers 
to the music and dance.

Hiphil of SWR has the idea of "removing" (causing 
to turn aside to leave), used for example of David 
removing Goliath's head.

(D could refer either to "witness" or "time", or 
did the author of this stone use this as a pun to 
refer to both?

DMH is also one of the variant spellings for "to be 
still, silent" which does fit the context, because 
of bitterness one does not have song and dance but 
is still.

These are the mistakes I'd expect from a first year 
student, not someone who claims to know Hebrew 
well.

> > H(DW prefixed H for the definite article. (D is
> > a noun. W suffix masculine possessive. From the
> > context, it points back to Z.
> 
> Since when is the -W possessive suffix attached
> to a word with the definite article?
> 
How about Job 40:19 "the his maker" and Micah 2:12 
"as a flock in the its ???" (the word is listed as 
used only twice in Tanakh, its meaning is 
uncertain). If I looked, I probably could find 
more.

> > 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.
> 
> Well, you are the only one who "recognizes" this
> inscription, anyway.
> 
What sort of snide remark is this?

> > 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.
> 
> It seems that in all the personal attacks, you forgot to
> explain what makes this inscription "Proto-Sinaitic."
> The inscription, in any case, is not Hebrew.
> 
What is it then?

> Yitzhak Sapir

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