Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yonah Mishael" <yonahmishael AT gmail.com>]

Why do you keep saying the "orthodox" hypothesis. I do not think there
is an "orthodox" and "heterodox" position on this. There is simply
"correct" and "incorrect." And we all have guesses at which side we
happen to be on. It just seems that the entire range of Hebrew
scholarships disagrees with your assertion. I prefer to go with the
majority on this, which in my eyes seems to be "correct."

Best wishes,
Yonah

On 9/28/06, Vadim Cherny <VadimCherny AT mail.ru> wrote:
> There are plenty of Hebrew words of **ah form. Only a tiny subset of them,
> to*ah, could be theoretically attributed to i*h roots. Thus, the orthodox
> hypothesis doesn't pass the Occam's because it assumes different derivation
> for to*ah and other **ah words. I suggest a common derivation for all **ah
> words: **+suffix of result h.
>
> Vadim Cherny
>
>
> > I have never heard of this book, and I don't know where I could get my
> > hands on it. What different light could this book shine on what
> > "gender" means (beyond just "feminine")? Generally it has to do with
> > agreement between a noun and its modifiers, regardless of the natural
> > gender of the given noun -- que yo sepa.
> >
> > $LWM,
> > Yonah
> >
> > On 9/26/06, Reinhard G. Lehmann <lehmann AT uni-mainz.de> wrote:
> > >  From time to time it would be a good idea to have a look at
> > > Diethelm Michel, Grundlegung einer hebräischen Syntax. Teil 1: Genus und
> > > Numerus des Nomens,
> > > Neukirchen 1977 and 2nd edition 2004
> > > to get some idea what a "feminine" really was...
> > >
> > > Reinhard G. Lehmann
> > > > I think you would do well to read about noun patterns in /Biblical
> > > > Hebrew Syntax/ by Waltke and O'Connor (pages 83-94), paying specific
> > > > attention to ?5.6, entitled "Patterns with Prefixing," on pages 90-92.
> > > > ?5.6.c addresses the T-prefix.
> > > >
> > >
> > > >> 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?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Yonah Mishael ben Avraham
> > Joplin, MO
> > yonahmishael AT gmail.com
> >


--
Yonah Mishael ben Avraham
Joplin, MO
yonahmishael AT gmail.com