Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

Yeah, I thought it was a little bit of a stretch as well but I think these 
things are interesting none the less.  I don't think I agree with it but it 
is something that I considered.
--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Yonah Mishael" <yonahmishael AT gmail.com> 

> On 10/5/06, B. M. Rocine wrote: 
> > Hi Kelton, 
> > 
> > Re Gen 2:25, they came into being naked. That means from the start, 
> > from their being created, they were naked. The verse is not just saying 
> > that they were naked (read verbless clause, sheneyhem `arumiym). It is 
> > stating that they came about or came into being naked (read wayyiqtol 
> > clause, vayyihyu sheneyhem `arumiym). 
> > 
> > Re 2Chr 20:25, we can read it "three days transpired (vayyihyu) 
> > plundering the spoil..." or "Those plundering the spoil did their thing 
> > (vayyihyu) three days..." I think the word order recommends the former. 
> > 
> > Shalom, 
> > Bryan 
> > 
> 
> WOW. I read Karl's comment above as well as yours, Bryan, but I think 
> that this is stretching. This verse is not saying that "God created 
> them naked," althought this is surely how they came to be naked. It is 
> simply saying that "they were naked" as part of the story line because 
> it became important that both (1) the serpent was also (RWM (in this 
> instance, "crafty" or the like) and (2) their nakedness became the 
> sign to them that they knew good and evil. Hence, God asking them, MY 
> HDYS LK KY (YRM )TH [מי הגיד לך כי עירם אתה] -- "Who has 
> told 
> you that 
> you [were] naked?" I cannot agree that there is any sense of 
> "becoming" in Genesis 2:25 when it was announced that the two were 
> naked. 
> 
> The fact that they were both naked and "felt no shame" L) YTB$$W was 
> part of the main storyline, and this explains why HYH was elevated and 
> placed in the WYQTWL form. This form elevates what would normally be 
> only a verbless clause into primary material and separates it from 
> what came before ("for this reason a man shall leave his father and 
> mother etc...."). 
> 
> Regards, 
> Yonah 
> 
> -- 
> Yonah Mishael ben Avraham 
> Joplin, MO 
> yonahmishael AT gmail.com 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From kgraham0938 AT comcast.net  Fri Oct  6 14:03:59 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 rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [216.148.227.151])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A200D4C00D
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri,  6 Oct 2006 14:03:59 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from rmailcenter15.comcast.net ([204.127.197.125])
        by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP
        id <20061006180353m1100rshqie>; Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:03:58 +0000
Received: from [69.246.10.143] by rmailcenter15.comcast.net;
        Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:03:52 +0000
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
To: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:03:52 +0000
Message-Id: 
<100620061803.16490.45269A88000557610000406A2205886172C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 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 <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!
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: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:03:59 -0000

Hello Peter, thanks for the reply.  I don't think I am with you on the use of 
hayah there but I do appreciate your thoughts on `arum because I have often 
wondered what the connection is between them being `arumiym and satan being 
`arum with the disjunctive clause.

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org> 

> On 04/10/2006 03:26, kgraham0938 AT comcast.net wrote: 
> > Hello Peter, 
> > 
> > I am curious about your statement about WAYIH:YW = become as opposed 
> > to 'were.' What do you think is the difference btw Judges 16:30 and 
> > Genesis 2:25? 
> > 
> > WAYIH:YW $N"HEM `RWMMIYM.... would you translate this as "They became 
> > naked.." or am I misreading your point? Thanks 
> > 
> Sorry to be slow replying to this. I have been out of touch. But others 
> have said it all. They came into being naked. They did not become naked 
> in the sense of having previously been clothed. But this is the next 
> stage in the story. 
> 
> But the chapter division is perhaps unfortunate for it misses the 
> contrast between this verse and the next one, in which HYH `ARUM is used 
> with a different construction commonly used to mark contrast with the 
> previous WAYYIQTOL clause. I even wonder if "naked" is a mistranslation 
> here. A different word form (although obviously related) is used in 
> 3:10,11. So perhaps the point in 2:25 is that they became shrewd or 
> "streetwise", in other words over time in the garden they learned by 
> experience. This would be an event, for which "became" is obviously 
> appropriate. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Peter Kirk 
> E-mail: peter AT qaya.org 
> Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/ 
> Website: http://www.qaya.org/ 
> 
> 
>From VadimCherny AT mail.ru  Fri Oct  6 14:16:24 2006
Return-Path: <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mx2.mail.ru (mx2.mail.ru [194.67.23.122])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271164C00D
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri,  6 Oct 2006 14:16:23 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [83.143.234.145] (port=3145 helo=SRVVAD)
        by mx2.mail.ru with asmtp 
        id 1GVuFA-000DFi-00; Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:16:21 +0400
Message-ID: <003401c6e973$84d88110$0300000a@SRVVAD>
From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
To: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>,
        <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <m1GVpTJ-000GhjC AT exc.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 21:16:08 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Segol etc.
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: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:16:24 -0000


> >Segol is not a short tzere. Segol occurs in one and only one instance: in
> >epenthesis (cotevt - cotevet, calb - celev, etc).
>
> I do not think this is right.
>
> For example, many words, such as Aleph-taf (accusative marker), are
> pointed with tzere in isolation, and with segol when part of the
> following word.

et does not exist as stand-alone word. Its tzere is entirely artificial. In
all likelyhood, tzere in et is aleph-modified kamatz, like in any other
preposition. You can see the vocalization of preposition in constructs with
monosyllabic pronouns, such as lAnu.
The case of et is clear: et is attached to the next word, and lacks its own
accent. The vowel under aleph should reduce to schwa (because of the stress
shift).

Besides, et is a very specific case. Any examples of regular words?

> Similarly, final Heh is verbal forms is often preceded by segol
> (ro'eh, yiv'neh, etc.), even though certainly there can be no
> epenthesis at the end of a word.

Again, this is a specific case. Why, by the way, there couldn't be
epenthesis at the word end? cotevt - cotevet.
The case for segol before final hey is simple: final hey is a root
consonant, unlike mater lectionis for [a] in suffixes, and it affects
lagging vowel, making it [e]-like.

The important thing about seghol is that it occurs either in specific
epenthetic positions, or with specific consonants. No other vowel is relates
to specific consonants. Thus, we can be pretty certain of the allophony.

> >Segol, therefore, is a short indeterminate sound, sort of Russian ?
> >or French apostrophe.
>
> Even if segol were only epenthetic, the reasoning here would be
> faulty.  The sound of an epenthetic vowel cannot be deduced from its
> role in epenthesis.  Spanish has an epenthetic vowel /e/, while the
> real epenthetic vowel in Hebrew is /i/.  (This is why we find
> lishmu'el "to Samuel," for lshmu'el.)

Epenthetic hirek is one of the few Masoretic inventions. LXX clearly shows
variations. Given the variations of [a] and short [e] in the LXX, and [i] of
the MT, the sound was close to [e]. The Masoretes marked epenthesis with
hirek in word-beginning, and with segol elsewhere. The difference perhaps is
that vocal schwa (from reduction) in word-beginning makes epenthetic vowel
longer, thus [i]. Elsewhere, epenthesis is pure - there was no other vowel
in its place (cotevt - cotevet) - and the epenthetic sound is shorter, segol
instead of hirek.
liShmuel relates to the first schwa in Schmuel, l'sh'muel - lishmuel

> >Short tzere and holam are patah, hirek, or shuruk. Consider hitlabEsh -
> >hitlabAsh.ti, gadOl - gdUl.lA.
>
> But again, hitlab[tzere]sh becomes hitlab[segol]sh before a maqaf.

But the word shortens in between because of the stress shift on the second
word joined by maqef (like in cosntructus). Segol is the expanded schwa, not
shortened tzere.

Vadim Cherny