Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Joshua 2:1 and 17, Questions

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: Jason Hare <jaihare AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Joshua 2:1 and 17, Questions
  • Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 21:50:38 -0400

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page