Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

(Note that the first part of this is essentially the same as what I 
wrote to Brak offlist and he quoted back to the list)

On 22/04/2007 03:55, Brak wrote:
>   Sorry about the missing alephs. I thought I had typed them.
>
> I was wondering of the word )UM.IYM was related to the word "mother".
>
> Now you state that L:)OM and I would assume you would also include the 
> words in question )UM.IYM  and  L:)UM.IYM is most likely not related to 
> )UM.IYM and )UM.FH
> I was wondering why you think that. To my limited knowledge it would 
> appear that )UM.IYM was the basis for L:)UM.IYM and that in fact 
> L:)UM.IYM should be morphed as L:/)UM.IYM to mean "to people" or "for 
> people"? Or would it be some grammar thing in which the L: is doing 
> something to the word instead of adding "to"?
>
>   
I think that because Hebrew does not have prefixed nouns. That is, 
prefixes like L- can be attached to nouns to make prepositional phrases, 
hence L- attached to )UM.IYM makes "to the people". But this does not 
make a new noun with a modified meaning, as it would in Greek or Latin, 
or to some extent in English e.g. "stander" > "bystander". So the noun 
L:)UM.IYM, despite looking identical to L- plus )UM.IYM, must be from a 
separate root. At least, that is standard Hebrew grammar and 
lexicography. I would not say that exceptions are impossible, but it 
would need high level expertise to argue the case for this being one.
> Also, I checked in the Aleppo Codex and it has BAL:)UM.IYM so I am 
> wondering is the LC the only one with this variant.
>
>   
According to the notes in BHS at Psalm 44:15, "mlt Mss Edd" have the 
Aleppo reading, which is explained as between 20 and 60 of the 
manuscripts and editions consulted. This is to be distinguished from 
"permlt Mss" meaning more than 60. The implication seems to be that 
there is more than one manuscript or edition which does not agree with 
Aleppo.

On 22/04/2007 03:55, Brak wrote:
> Please excuse my ignorance here, but I'm kind of confused.
>
> Let me restate what I think I'm hearing:
>
> )UM.IYM means "peoples"
> L: means "to" or "for"
>
> L:)UM.IYM means "peoples"
>
> But L:)UM.IYM  does not mean L: plus )UM.IYM
Well, L:)UM.IYM  COULD mean L: plus )UM.IYM, in other words "to 
peoples", but it does not mean that when it means "peoples", which is 
what it means in Genesis 25:23 and 28 other places. Note that "to 
peoples" and "peoples" do NOT mean the same thing! For in these 29 
places L:)UM.IYM is the plural of the noun L:)OM, also found in the 
singular in Genesis 25:23 (twice) and in two other places. If you look 
at how L:)UM.IYM is used, it is quite clearly a noun on its own, not a 
noun with a preposition prefix.

I hope Pere's explanation has also helped you.

> That just doesn't make sence. Both )UM.IYM  and L:)UM.IYM  look 
> identical except the one has L: added and they both mean the same 
> thing "peoples" but yet they are not related????
>
> I hope my confusion on this makes sence. Logic would dictate (at least 
> in my mind) they are are realted - look alike means the same.
>
> Can I please recieve an explaination as to why - how despite looking 
> identical and meaning identical things that they are not related?
All I can say is that there are lots of things in this world which look 
very similar but are not related. You need to look a bit deeper than 
surface appearances.

Peter

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