Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] The word A$ER [was Ecclesiastes 3:11]

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The word A$ER [was Ecclesiastes 3:11]
  • Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:13:48 -0500

Bryant,

The word A$ER = A$-E-R consists of the existence marker A$, of the family, D, Z, T [Tet], Y, S, C, S, T [Tav], the personal pronoun E = HI), and the plurality marker R. Hence A$ER is essentially 'it exists in variaty'.
The existence marker A$ appears otherwise as AD, AZ [V-HA-KNAANI AZ BA-)AREC, Genesis 12:6], AT, AC, then as ZEH = Z-HI), ZO = ZU = Z- HU), $E-, and YE$, 'there is'. The Hebrew existence marker A$ corresponds to the English 'is, as, so, it, at, to, do'.
The root )$R is a member of the root family )DR, )ZR, )SR, )CR, )$R, ) TR; (DR, (ZR, (TR, (CR, ($R, (TR; $)R, T)R, Z(R, S(R, C(R, $(R, DR), ZR(, YR(, CR(, SR(; DRR, ZRR, SRR, CRR, $RR

אדר, אזר, אטר, אסר, אצר, אשׁר, אתר
עדר, עזר, עטר, עצר, עשׁר, עתר
שׁאר, תאר
זער, יער, סער, צער, שׁער
דרא, זרא, ירא
זרה, ירה, סרה, צרה, שׁרה
זרע, ירע, צרע, שׂרע
דרר, זרר, סרר, צרר, שׁרר

Thus the English equivalent to the Hebrew A$ER is the compound 'is- are' or 'are-is'. It is inherently plural but is used also in the singular in the sense of 'he-is, it-is' or 'is-he, is-it'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Nov 17, 2007, at 3:01 PM, Bryant J. Williams III wrote:

Dear Yitzhak,

Reference Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, page 483, Para. 152y, #2. It states the
following:

"2. Two negatives in the same sentence do not neutralize each other (as in
'nonulli, non nemo'), but make the negation more emphatic (like 'OUK OUDEIS, OUK
OUDAMWS, 'NULLI-NON, NEMO NON'); E.G. Zp 2:2 (if the text is correct) This
especially applies to the compounds formed by the union of )ayN, BeLI with MiN-,
without (para. 119y), e.g. Is 5:9; (6:11 ) (Jer. 2:15,) prop. without no
inhabitant, i.e. so that no inhabitant is left there. On the other hand, in Is
50:2 is causative; as also Ex 14:11; 2 K 1:2, 6, 16. ***In Ec 3:11 except that
(yet so that man cannot, &c.)."*** (Emphasis mine)

Now, regarding )asher, see Gesenius, paragraph 138, The Relative Pronoun
especially sub-section "a." I would suggest that we all review what he says
regarding 'asher.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III



----- Original Message -----
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
To: "b-hebrew Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ecclesiastes 3:11


On Nov 16, 2007 9:52 PM, Martin Shields wrote:
Yitzhak,

Is it possible that the author of Qohelet is here trying to write in
Hebrew
a phrase using a specific word structure that is more natural in an
Indo-
European language, such as Greek (the phrase being something of the
sort of "without which a man will not find")?

I think this is what the text means (see my other posts), but I don't
think understanding it this way is necessarily dependent upon Indo-
European influence. I think it is probably the simplest understanding
of the Hebrew anyway. OTOH, there's a long tradition of seeing Greek
influence in Qohelet, and if that's to be seen in any way in this
verse I suspect it is more likely related to העלם (αιων in the
LXX which is a term loaded with rather more baggage than עולם in
biblical Hebrew).

Hello,

Part of the reason I suggested IE influence is the unnatural word order
as far as Biblical syntax is concerned. You can try to interpret the final
meaning any way you want, but the fact remains that "without which"
translates almost precisely the meaning of the words mbly and ?$r in that
order, and also does make sense of the sentence. But ?$r doesn't work
in Biblical syntax in this way. ?$r generally stands between the
subordinate clause and the main sentence, as a connection between
the two. If the subordinate clause needs to refer to the antecedent it uses
the 3s pronoun. HALOT provides (in the entry on ?$r) Is 5:28 and Ps 95:5
as examples of this. As far as "without", the general word is bl(dy,
possibly prefixed with m-. A nice similar example is Gen 41:44. Thus, to
say "without which" in normative Biblical Hebrew, one should write "?$r
bl(dyw" instead. Indeed, if one replaces "mbly ?$r" with these words, the
sentence sounds a lot more "normal." The use of "mbly ?$r" therefore
rings of the sound of some foreign influence, as if a speaker of a foreign
language, very possibly some IE language, tried to say "without which"
but did not use the appropriate Hebrew syntax, and used instead his
own native language syntax. I'm not saying a non-Hebrew speaker
wrote this, but I think it does suggest that some foreign linguistic
influence is in place here.

Yitzhak Sapir
_______________________________________________
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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/07 2:55
PM


For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!

_______________________________________________
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