Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

@Yitzhak:

Thanks alot I appreciate it, the only problem I have is that the apparatus of 
BHS says many manuscripts have 'ayil' here as opposed to 'el.  And it seems 
to me that 'el going into 'eley is not impossible but pretty rare if in the 
Hebrew bible.  I have not found one other example of 'el going into plural 
construct, but that is not to say it is impossible and I have not checked 
other outside sources but it seems that 'ayil would be the better rendering.



--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> 

> On 9/26/06, kgraham0938 AT comcast.net wrote: 
> > y:ddab:rw lo 'eley gibborim. 
> > I have a couple question about this verse. 
> > 1) what does that little 's' mean in BHS under 'eley? Does 
> > it mean alternaltive spelling? 
> 
> It is a cantillation mark called a "darga". See here: 
> http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~hr/teamim/tables.html#con21 
> http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~hr/teamim/ 
> http://www.tiferethisrael.org/Resources/HaftarahTropes/HT_Trope9.htm 
> 
> > 2) is 'eley the plural construct of 'EL(gods) or Ayil?( leader) 
> 
> )eley is the plural of )el, here referencing a strong individual. 
> 
> Yitzhak Sapir 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From kgraham0938 AT comcast.net  Wed Sep 27 12:20:15 2006
Return-Path: <kgraham0938 AT comcast.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from rwcrmhc15.comcast.net (rwcrmhc15.comcast.net [204.127.192.85])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3474C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:20:15 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from rmailcenter02.comcast.net ([204.127.197.112])
        by comcast.net (rwcrmhc15) with SMTP
        id <20060927162014m1500lg090e>; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:20:14 +0000
Received: from [69.246.10.143] by rmailcenter02.comcast.net;
        Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:20:13 +0000
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
To: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:20:13 +0000
Message-Id: 
<092720061620.18068.451AA4BD000343F6000046942200750744C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 AT comcast.net>
X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Apr 11 2006)
X-Authenticated-Sender: a2dyYWhhbTA5MzhAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.8
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] help with Ezekiel 32:21
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:20:15 -0000

Hey Karl, but don't you see 'eley gibborim as the subject of y:dabb:rw "
That is pretty interesting.  I would have never saw it that way.
--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> 

> Kelton: 
> 
> On 9/26/06, kgraham0938 AT comcast.net wrote: 
> > y:ddab:rw lo 'eley gibborim. 
> > I have a couple question about this verse. 
> > 
> > 2) is 'eley the plural construct of 'EL(gods) or Ayil?( leader) 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Kelton Graham 
> > KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net 
> 
> Neither. It has the meaning of "unto me". 
> 
> Look at the context, which starts in verse 17. The destruction of 
> Egypt is discussed, and they (the Egyptian multitude) say, if only 
> (there are) heros unto me from the midst of the place of the dead ... 
> 
> Karl W. Randolph. 
>From wattswestmaas AT eircom.net  Wed Sep 27 12:43:46 2006
Return-Path: <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org
Received: from mail05.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net
        (mail05.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net [159.134.118.21])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D0834C00C
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:43:45 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: (qmail 14105 messnum 3334602 invoked from
        network[159.134.216.160/159-134-216-160.as2.chf.cork.eircom.net]);
        27 Sep 2006 16:43:42 -0000
Received: from 159-134-216-160.as2.chf.cork.eircom.net (HELO chris696dabb06)
        (159.134.216.160)
        by mail05.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (qp 14105) with SMTP;
        27 Sep 2006 16:43:42 -0000
Message-ID: <000901c6e254$020cc780$a0d8869f@chris696dabb06>
From: "Chris and Nel" <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:42:31 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
        reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Subject: [b-hebrew] Gesenius on Femininity, response to  Peter and Karl
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:43:46 -0000

Peter and Karl

That is my point: "Arbitrary" - I don't really like that.  Arbitrary in this 
instance can also be a replacement for "we have not found the reason"?  For 
example, when the numbers 3 t/m 10 take the masc and fem endings back to 
front when modifying their counterparts?  Is this arbitrary? Or do we assume 
that there is a jolly good reason lost to us for the present?

Secondly there are patterns for nouns apparently without "natural
gender", such as: Earth and nations, parts of the body, a lot of abstracts; 
I could go on with examples but I am sure that you know them.

Best regards to you both
Chris
Ireland.


> Peter, surely you can not be serious? ...

I am absolutely serious. 19th century scholars like Gesenius speculated
about reasons for grammatical gender, but 20th century linguists
realised that, although there may be some explanation lost in the depths
of time, the grammatical gender assignments of words without "natural
gender" can only be treated as arbitrary.

> ... It SEEMS arbitrary and that is why I
> asked.  I had always thought that apart from the obvious male/female
> associations the rest is just accident, but it seems quite clear that
> accident has nothing to do with it, it may appear accident, but I think 
> that
> Gesenius has a point, you don't think so?
>
>
No. Your intuitions on this are better than the outmoded ones of Gesenius.

-- 
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/



------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:04:41 -0700
From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Gesenius on Femininity
To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID:
 <acd782170609251404k196bdd7fx93e13ffe7c96e5b6 AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Chris:

I will back up Peter.

I have uncovered patterns explaining why some nouns are feminine, but
in many cases the gender of a noun is just arbitrary, often just
because a noun has a certain form will determine its gender
irrespective of its meaning.

In the case of TWRH, it is from the same root as the verb YRH which
means to shoot out teachings, ideas, rain, projectiles, and anything
that can be shot out. TWRH is a regular development of a peh-yod root,
but with a heh as a final, which usually denotes a feminine gender.
Thus the fact that TWRH is feminine can be explained as a grammatical
structure, nothing more.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 9/25/06, Chris and Nel <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net> wrote:
> Peter, surely you can not be serious?  It SEEMS arbitrary and that is why 
> I
> asked.  I had always thought that apart from the obvious male/female
> associations the rest is just accident, but it seems quite clear that
> accident has nothing to do with it, it may appear accident, but I think 
> that
> Gesenius has a point, you don't think so?
>
> Regards Chris
>
> 25 sept Peter Kirk replied:
>
> > This is not how language works. In any language with grammatical gender,
> > the gender of many nouns is entirely arbitrary and no significance can
> > be derived from it at all.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Kirk
> > E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
> > Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
> > Website: http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
> On 23/09/2006 19:39, Chris and Nel wrote:
>
> > Gesenius makes some interesting observations about the purpose of a noun
> > being in the feminine:  "Indication of the gender of the noun" page 411
> > (1898 edition).
> > This got me thinking about a few words that had no apparent reason for
> > being
> > in the feminine.  One such word was the obvious -- Torah.  And so I 
> > wonder
> > whether there would be agreement to the following 'idea' (based on
> > Gesenius's reasoning) that while this concept was masterful, strong,
> > dominant and hence a masculine ideal; it is rather by absolute contrast 
> > a
> > productive, sustaining, nourishing concept! and hence feminine.  (All 
> > this
> > assuming that Torah is understood along the lines that it means nore
> > teaching and guiding and instruction rather than the negative concept of
> > 'Law' as assumed in some circles)
> >
> > What are your thoughts on this?