Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 1/7/07, K Randolph 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?

It is relatively convenient for you to turn up in the middle (end?) of the
discussion.  Both QW and TW have been dealt with before.  Namely,
the verb is derived from the noun, not the noun from the verb.  In the
case of rav (RB) and ribbo (RBW), the nouns indicate that they are
related to the verb rbb, because of the pointing in suffixed forms.

> > 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.

And what is the difference between "that which is commanded" and
"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.

The point is that the absence of this word already from Septuagint times
onwards is very strange if there was indeed such a word cw meaning
"command".

> 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.

I don't doubt the parallelism.  I find it a little strange that God likens
himself to rottenness, of all destructive forces, and the placement
of the phrase "ho)il" in the previous verse.

> > 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, 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.

I want to know the message of Isaiah 28:10, 13 but I am not willing to
place modern semantics into ancient words in order to arrive at that
message.  As you said, we are discussing ancient Hebrew.  My nice
little "comparison" or rather a theory of orthographic variance and
ambivalence in relationship to the letter that represents Arabic "Dad",
is much more substantiated than the meanings you suggest for Isaiah
28:10,13, but that's my own opinion, of course.

Yitzhak Sapir