Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

Jason,

I admit that  HAZEH is irregular and we would have expected HAZO  
instead. So what? It is contextually crystal clear what it is all  
about. I merely used this opportunity, as I routinely do, to express  
my adamant opinion that reference to a "binyan" is often devoid of  
sense. To say that HILBI$ is is 'hiphil' is like saying that a circle  
is round. The structure of HILBI$ is the root LB$ augmented by the  
two personal pronouns HI, HI, one for the initiator of the act LB$  
and the other for the its beneficiary. This makes sense. How obvious  
everything becomes when you see  HI$BA(TANU as being the composition  
(can it be otherwise?) HI-$BA(-AT-ANU.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 31, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Jason Hare wrote:

> Isaac,
>
> (1) I do not think it "redundant" to mention the binyan of a specific
> form. However, no one mentioned it at all. The question was entirely
> other.
>
> (2) The question was about the form, which is MASCULINE!
>
> > > > > Additionally... Is it normal to use a direct object like this
> with להשביע? Should it not employ a lamed-prefix for the  
> indirect
> object? I don't know what's standard in BH.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jason
>
> On 5/31/07, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> > B-Hebrew LISTIM,
> >
> > HI$BA(TANU consists of the root SB(, 'swear', and the three attached
> > personal pronouns HI, AT, ANU for the contextually obvious actors.
> > Every Hebrew word is but a root plus personal pronouns. Using the
> > term 'hiphil' is a redundancy.
> >
> > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> >
> > On May 30, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Jason Hare wrote:
> >
> > > Dear B-Hebrew,
> > >
> > > Last night I read a couple of chapters of Joshua for leisure, and
> > > there are a couple of things that I noticed that I wanted to ask
> > > about:
> > >
> > > (1) Although $BW(H /shevu'ah/ [שבועה] is feminine, it is
> > > modified with
> > > the masculine ZH /zeh/ [זה] in 2:17:
> > >
> > > נְקִיִּם אֲנַחְנוּ מִשְּׁבֻעָתֵךְ
> > > הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁבַּעְתָּנוּ
> > > NQYM )NXNW M$B(TK HZH )$R H$B(TNW
> > >
> > > Come to think of it, why is H$B(TNW masculine, when it is talking
> > > about Rahab?
> > >
> > > (2) Is there any reason why the NIV footnote says that the word ZWNH
> > > /zonah/ [זונה] can be translated as "innkeeper"?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jason
> > > Joplin, MO > Ra'anana (Israel)
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew