Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Pere:
I was clearing out my mailbox and noticed this unfinished business.

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 9:27 PM, <pporta AT oham.net> wrote:

> [KR]
>>>
>>>> This verse has what seems to me to be an unusual form of a word, namely
>>>> Y$RHW. It looks as if it is from the noun Y$RH, but with the masculine
>>>> suffix it then should be Y$RTW, or if a lamed-he verb, the normal form
>>>> should be Y$RYTW.
>>>>
>>>
>>> [KR]
>
>> If this is a verb, what is the object of the verb as indicated by the -HW?
>>
>
> [PP]
>
> I think -HW refers here to HGH (verse 2).
>
>>
>>> [KR]
>>>
>>>  If it is a verb, then it is a happax legomai, then the question is what
>>>> does it mean? The gloss supplied from the dictionaries I consulted
>>>> doesn't seem
>>>> to fit the context. The LXX translators seemed to think that it was from
>>>> the root as $RR, which has the meaning of chaining down, being a prince
>>>> (law
>>>> enforcer).
>>>>
>>>>
>>> [PP]
>>>
>>> The meaning "let loose" of verb $RH does not fit here?
>>>
>>
> [KR]
>
>> Nope. First, if that is a verb, what is its object? Secondly, what is
>>> being
>>>
>> let loose? (The two questions are similar, not exactly the same.) It seems
>> as if there is a list of actions that strengthen God's presence, then
>> suddenly something that is let loose?
>>
>
> [PP]
> I said it: HGH, the sound (of thunder). The thunder sound comes out from
> the mouth of God and spreads "under heaven" (at clouds level) so that it is
> heard in many places...
>
> HGH refers to soft muttering or sighing, not thunder. Furthermore, there is
already a verb connected with this in the previous verse. If the verse
separation is in the original, and the context and LXX both indicate that it
was, then it appears to me that the verb is TXT from XTT referring to
paralysis from fear. Another option, which the LXX translators chose, is to
recognize an implied verb "to be" in this sentence.


> [KR]
>
>  As I said above, this is a puzzling verse, where the understanding seems
>> to
>> turn on the meaning of Y$RHW.
>>
>
> [PP]
> Of course, because it is the ONLY verb of the sentence. In any sentence
> where there is ONLY a verb...  the real and true meaning of this sentence
> depends mainly on the meaning of the verb.
>
> From the context, I see it as a noun. The translators of the LXX also
understood it as a noun. As a verb you need to pull in an object from a
previous, completed thought, whereas as a noun the suffix refers to the
common subject of the surrounding verses, a contextual clue pointing to it
being a noun.

If Y$RH is understood as a noun, there are probably hundreds of examples of
nouns ending in a -H that take this form when adding a third person singular
male suffix. I should have looked that up sooner.


>
> Pere Porta
> Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain)
>
> Karl W. Randolph.