Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold Jenkerson" <jenks AT gilanet.com>]

Sir,
Most translations of this verse translate the Hebrew word "voice" as "sound"
and the word "spirit" as some meteorlogical term such as "cool," rather than
voice and spirit.  Would it not be in keeping with the entire message of the
Bible to keep to "voice" and "spirit"?

To translate as such would it go against the Hebrew grammar of the verse?

Thanks,
Harold Jenkerson
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10


> Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: shwa (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:00:08 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] shwa
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <m1FInai-000GhjC AT exc.com>
>
> >I would like to ask the interested members' opinion on the origin of
> >the word ???? shtayim.
> >Remarkably, this word has a shwa with the shin, but a dagesh in the taw.
> >A so-called shwa na` (mobile) is supposed not to be followed by a
> >sharp begedkepet consonant sign: it should have a soft
> >"veghedhkhefeth" variant, if the shwa we are dealing with had once
> >been a vowel - i.e. if it really is a shwa na`.
> >
> >Of course, to the Masoretes there was only one shwa: representing the
> >absence of a vowel.
>
> Right (though others on this list disagree).  I go through this in
> detail in my NYU book, where I include a discussion of the erroneous
> thought process that led people to posit two kinds of shwa.
>
> SHTAYIM is not the only problem with the two-shwa theory.  Classical
> grammars assume (impossibly) that the vocal shwa is pronounced but
> does not add a syllable.  Then, because of words like SHTAYIM, some
> grammars invent a third kind of shwa.
>
> But once you come to the realization that a shwa represents the lack
> of a vowel --- no more, no less --- everything because eaiser and more
> sensible.
>
> -Joel
>
> Joel M. Hoffman
> http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10
> ****************************************
>
>