Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Yigal,

I know that some Arabs pushed some Ayin so deep into their throat  
that they choked on it and had to spit it back out as a fuzzy G or an  
R. (ALMAH could equally well be GALMA, CALMA, $ALMA, TALMAH. SALMAH  
is already taken for a full dress, and KALMAH does not connote well,  
as does BALMAH.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jul 18, 2007, at 11:46 PM, Yigal Levin wrote:

> Dear Isaac,
>
> The G in "glmt" is really a Gh, the letter "ghayin", related to  
> 'ayin but
> pronounced deeper in the throat. This letter still exists in  
> Arabic. The
> ancient Hebrews kept the distinction between the two even though  
> they used
> the same sign for both of them, somwhat like Shin and Sin. So that  
> some
> 'ayins are orriginally ghayins. For Example, this is why the city  
> name 'Azza
> in Hebrew became Gaza in Greek - because that how in was still  
> pronounced in
> Hellenistic times (and is still pronounced in Arabic). That's why  
> 'Amorah is
> "Gommorah". In this case, the Ugaritic proves that the 'ayin in  
> 'almah is
> really a ghayin.
>
> Yigal Levin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Isaac Fried" <if AT math.bu.edu>
> To: "Tory Thorpe" <torythrp AT yahoo.com>
> Cc: "B Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity
>
>
> > Tory,
> >
> > It appears to me that the "Ugaritic" word glmt = galmat? you are
> > quoting below is from the root GLM, 'to have shape, to have body, to
> > be compact'. The word ends in the personal pronoun AT for the woman
> > itself. The word GOLEM, 'fetus', of Psalms 139:16 is one of the words
> > derived from this root. The root GLM is of the root family BLM, KLM,
> > CLM, SLM, $LM [hence the name $ULAMIT of Songs 7:1, in which both the
> > U and the IT are personal pronouns] and TLM.
> >
> > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> >
> > On Jul 18, 2007, at 9:45 PM, Tory Thorpe wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Bill,
> > >
> > > On Jul 18, 2007, at 6:03 PM, Bill Rea wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tory wrote:-
> > > >
> > > > > If Isaiah had intended physical virginity to be clearly
> > > > > understood he
> > > > > would have undoubtedly wrote "woman/girl whom no man had known..."
> > > > > which is the manner in which the Hebrew author of Jdg. xxi 12
> > > > > expresses physical virginity so as to remove any possibility of
> > > > > doubt.
> > > >
> > > > This is an assumption on your part. As such you can't elevate an
> > > > assumption to a fact. The Judges 21:12 can easily be read  
> > > > otherwise.
> > > > To insist that the author must have added ``whom no man had known''
> > > > to remove doubt is a reasonable assumption but no more reasonable
> > > > than believing the author was engaging in repitition for literary
> > > > effect.
> > >
> > > It is more than merely an assumption when one considers, for  
> > > example,
> > > the annunciation formula in the Hymn of Nikkal from Ugarit: hl glmt
> > > tld bn, "Look, the almah will give birth to a son" (UT 77:7).  
> > > This is
> > > strikingly similar to Isa. vii 14. Ugarit and ancient Israel  
> > > shared a
> > > conventional idiom, but used it differently. Cyrus H. Gordon always
> > > rendered glmt (= almah) in Ugaritic texts by "maid" and never
> > > "virgin" since another text from Ugarit puts glmt in parallelism  
> > > with
> > > 'att ("wife"), thus showing that the two are synonymous terms. The
> > > implication is that the etymological counterpart of Ugaritic glmt in
> > > BH may also be applied to a young wife. Gordon wrote: "almah means a
> > > 'young woman' who may be a virgin, but is not necessarily  
> > > so" (JBL 21
> > > [1953], p. 106). I don't think its possible to be more nonpartisan
> > > than that given the evidence currently available. Nothing has really
> > > changed since H. Schultz, Old Testament Theology (Edinburgh, 1892),
> > > II p. 414, agreed with the rabbinic understanding that almah has to
> > > do with years of age, not marital status or chastity per se.
> > >
> > > One needs to evaluate your assertion that the negative  
> > > expressions in
> > > Gen. xxiv 16 and Jdg. xxi 12 were added by the biblical author  
> > > merely
> > > for literary effect against the evidence from Sumerian and Akkadian.
> > > Similar negative expressions are used in these languages; there  
> > > is no
> > > single word for "virgin". There is no one word for "virgin" in
> > > Ugaritic or in Mishnaic Hebrew. I would also add Biblical Hebrew
> > > because of the way betulah is defined in the Mishnah and in the
> > > cognate languages of the ancient Near East. In this instance at
> > > least, I could cite others, the Mishnaic Hebrew illumines the BH.  
> > > For
> > > other examples, see R. Gordis "Studies in the Relationship of
> > > Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew" Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volumes (New
> > > York, 1946), pp. 173-200; idem, "Biblical Hebrew in Light of  
> > > Rabbinic
> > > Usage" in Sepher Tur-Sinai (Jerusalem, 1961), pp. 149-167.
> > >
> > > Tory Thorpe
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.6/902 - Release Date:  
> > 15/07/2007
> > 14:21
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew