Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:

On 1/6/07, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:
> ....  The evidence turns up very weak that from such a verb
> cwh/cwy, someone in Biblical times would have derived the word cw.
How about a similar derivation of TW from TWH? The verb is found in
the Hiphil in Ezekiel 9:4. And we have already discussed QW and QWH.
Or how about RBW from RBH, an alternate form of RBB, or the other
cases where a lamed hey verb has a derivative ending in a waw?

> And this weak evidence is compounded by the fact that there already is
> a word (mcwh),

This can indicate a difference of emphasis: MCWH to that which is
commanded, while CW to the command itself.

> ... that this word is not translated in the Septuagint as
> "command" (but as you noted appears to be a reading of "$w)"), that later
> Hebrew would derive a noun "cw)h" (giving an aleph as a place-holder for
> the final root letter), and that cw is missing from Rabbinic Hebrew.

Don't forget, we are discussing Biblical Hebrew, not later Hebrew.

> ...    You
> seem to have the evidence stacked up against you. I am not saying it
> isn't somehow possible.  It just appears extremely unlikely.
>
> In contrast, I would suggest correcting Hosea 5:11 cw with the
> Septuagint's reading "$w)" to read "cw)", and derive it from a cognate of
> Arabic Dw) "light", which does make some sense in that passage, given
> the following allusion to moths, which seems somewhat out of place
> otherwise.
Look at the context. Moth is in the next verse, put in parallel with
rottenness. Look at the actions of moths, particularly in their larval
stage, they get into food, clothing, books, all sorts of things and
ruin them. The context clearly indicates the destructive actions of
moths, and it fits right in.

> If you don't like that, I think it's best to just assume that it is a word of
> unknown meaning, than to assume that it is "command".
>
> Yitzhak Sapir

Yitzhak, I think you don't like the message of Isaiah 28:10, 13 and
that's why you are fighting so hard to say that it doesn't say what it
says. Also if the words have meaning, then they don't fit your nice
little comparison with which you started this set of messages.

Karl W. Randolph.