Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Mark Spitsbergen <awakesd AT mac.com>]

Can anyone shed some light on why "muth labben," in Psalms 9 should  
be in the words of Mitchell Dahood, "an unknown technical term?" The  
LXX reads "kruphion to uiou." which seems to imply "the son of a  
friend" or perhaps refers to "al alamoth" of Psalms 46. As I  
understand, this phrase could be translated:

1- death makes white (disregarding all pointing)
2- death of Labben (an enemy)
3- a death of a son
4- a corruption of al alamoth of Psalms 46, which I think means  
"accompaniment at a high pitch?"
5- an unknown technical term.

thanks,

Mark Spitsbergen

On Dec 13, 2008, at 10:20 AM, b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

> Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
>         b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Cast Jim off the Island (John M. Linebarger)
>    2. Re: Cast Jim off the Island (Bruce Prince)
>    3. Karl and Jim debate and more (David Kolinsky)
>    4. A blog is a great suggestion! (Christopher Kimball)
>    5. Re: Karl and Jim debate and more (dwashbur AT nyx.net)
>    6. Re: Cast Jim off the Island (dwashbur AT nyx.net)
>    7. Re: Need Help With Trope Identification (Jason Hare)
>    8. Re: Need Help With Trope Identification (Anthony Becker)
>    9. Re: Karl and Jim debate and more (K Randolph)
>   10. Re: Need Help With Trope Identification (Jason Hare)
>   11. Re: Need Help With Trope Identification (Yitzhak Sapir)
>   12. Re: Need Help With Trope Identification (Yitzhak Sapir)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:26:00 +0000
> From: jmlineb AT comcast.net (John M. Linebarger)
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Cast Jim off the Island
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> 	 
> <121220081826.13974.4942ACB800060F4E0000369622007507440D0A0207040306@c 
> omcast.net>
>         
>
> OK, you asked ...
>
> Here is my politically incorrect opinion.  We should vote to cast  
> Jim Stinehart off of the b-hebrew island.  Isaac Freed has odd  
> views, but at least he keeps his opinions short.  And Karl doesn't  
> bother me a bit.
>
> My two cents.  Enjoy!
>
> John M. Linebarger, PhD (Computer Science)
> Sandia National Laboratories
> Albuquerque, NM, USA
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:40:00 +1100
> From: "Bruce Prince" <bruceprince AT bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Cast Jim off the Island
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <027701c95c91$6c8cf440$45a6dcc0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear People
>
> This type of backing and forthing reaches its limit all too soon,  
> and we
> have a tendency to forget that the world needs the Jim Stineharts  
> just as
> much as the Karl Randolphs. If somebody doesn't like one or the other,
> simply press the Delete key; it is sooo easy. It is pointless in  
> getting
> upset and expending unnecessary energy on whinging and whining.
>
> Please brothers and sisters - some grace and patience.
>
> It costs nothing.
>
> Bruce Prince
> Australia
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> John M. Linebarger wrote:
> > Here is my politically incorrect opinion.  We should vote to cast Jim
> > Stinehart off of the b-hebrew island.  Isaac Freed has odd views,
> > but at least he keeps his opinions short.  And Karl doesn't bother  
> > me a
> bit.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:16:27 -0800 (PST)
> From: David Kolinsky <yishalom AT sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Karl and Jim debate and more
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <704292.11316.qm AT web82607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Dear David
> ?
> You Wrote
> ?
> "Karl and I have had our clashes in the past, but I really don't  
> see it this way.? In addressing my somewhat unique views, he has  
> never made me feel he was calling me an idiot or anything else.?  
> Disagreement can be healthy for all concerned, and I am definitely  
> not one who could be called "non-confrontational."? But I have  
> probably come closer to insulting him than he has to insulting me,"
> ?
> First, allow me to clarify that I am not interested in slaming nor  
> insulting Karl.? But it seems that my comments won't be taken at  
> face value and that I need to prove where Karl seems to be  
> insulting and badgering in an attempt to shut people (in this case  
> Karl) down:
> ?
> ?
> "I just reread an article by David Down, professional archeologist,
> describing research done in Egypt. In the article, he describes  
> findings
> that connect the Exodus with the 12th and 13th dynasties of Egypt.  
> Seeing as
> Abraham lived centuries earlier, that makes it impossible for your  
> theories
> to be anything other than the wildest flights of fancy, with  
> absolutely no
> relation to reality.
>
> > Again you connect the names to a Hebrew language which you claim  
> > did not
> exist at that time. How silly can you get? The names could have been
> Indo-European, not Semitic, making your whole analysis whistling in  
> the
> wind.
>
> The rest of your analysis is so silly as not to deserve a detailed  
> answer.
>
> Only after your continued posting started driving better people  
> than you
> from the list, as well as the moderators not taking action to ban  
> you, only
> then I decided to show up your foolishness. But even after I openly  
> mock
> you, you don?t seem to take the hint. I repeatedly mention facts  
> from the
> text and research, such as archaeology, that contradict your  
> claims, and you
> don?t acknowledge them.? Are there any facts that you would  
> acknowledge that
> could make you change your mind, or is your whole theory part of  
> that never
> never land of clairvoyance beyond God that cannot be bothered by  
> objective
> facts?
> ?
> You, who claims alone to have the key to decipher the mythology of  
> Genesis
> to bring it into the real world, completely misread this passage. In a
> society with interleaving connections, Abraham wants to remain free  
> from any
> answerability to the wicked king of wicked Sodom.
> ?
> Concerning your "A"s, your persistence has a certain amount of  
> lunacy about
> it: after being shown based on linguistic analysis that your theory  
> was
> untenable, to which you admitted, that you try to rebuild it has a  
> tinge of
> madness.
>
> Therefore, he refuses the reward so as to remain free of any  
> leverage that the king of Sodom might bring to bear. You in your  
> cultural isolation of modern Illinois, you can?t see this.
> ?
> Sez you! Why should I trust you? What are your credentials? Your  
> postings
> indicate great ignorance."
>
> ?
> Dave
>
> All of this seems to me like bullying.?
> ?
> I personally do see a great connection between
> ?
> XBL (rope, group, twist / writhe in pain)?and?
> XBR (bind, join together)
> ?
> (perhaps not exactly as Jim does) as well as
> ?
> XWB (indebted (is bound))
> XBB (embrace)
> XB? (hide (emrbace oneself))
> ?
> XBSh (bind up, saddle, bind up in layers)
> XBS (crush under enormous pressure)
> XBTs^ (crowd, push, shove in Syriac) (beat into a pulp, scramble -  
> Hebrew)
> XBT^ (beat out, thresh)
> ?
> XBK (Arabic - braid, plate, weave, knit, draw tight, bind, make  
> firm / solid)
> XBQ^ (Embrace, fold hands)
> ?
> and I see great value in using cognates in the analysis of Biblical  
> Hebrew.? They are not perfect, but they are tremendously valuable.
> ?
> Does no one on this list see that XB and its expansions means "to  
> join and?bind" and in some forms evolves bind up?> crowd in > push  
> together > beat together > beat apart
> ?
> Sincerely,
> ?
> david kolinsky
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:26:10 -0500
> From: Christopher Kimball <transcriber AT tanach.us>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] A blog is a great suggestion!
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <4942C8E2.9040008 AT tanach.us>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
>
> A blog would be a more effective vehicle for Jim than the b-hebrew
> list.  They're free and more suitable for lengthy discourses.  And  
> it's
> easier to refer readers to earlier pieces.
>
> Chris Kimball
> Redding, CT
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:24:28 -0800
> From: dwashbur AT nyx.net
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Karl and Jim debate and more
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <4942660C.14498.2E6361C AT dwashbur.nyx.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
>
> On 12 Dec 2008 at 12:16, David Kolinsky wrote:
>
> > Dear David
> > ?
> > You Wrote
> > ?
> > "Karl and I have had our clashes in the past, but I really don't  
> > see it this way.? In addressing my somewhat unique views, he has  
> > never made me feel he was calling me an idiot or anything else.?  
> > Disagreement can be healthy for all concerned, and I am definitely  
> > not one who could be called "non-confrontational."? But I have  
> > probably come closer to insulting him than he has to insulting me,"
> > ?
> > First, allow me to clarify that I am not interested in slaming nor  
> > insulting Karl.? But it seems that my comments won't be taken at  
> > face value and that I need to prove where Karl seems to be  
> > insulting and badgering in an attempt to shut people (in this case  
> > Karl) down:
>
> [snip]
>
> > All of this seems to me like bullying.?
>
> What would you suggest?  The consensus among scholars here who are  
> much more
> qualified than you or I is that Jim's ideas are precisely what Karl  
> describes them as: silly, off
> the wall, whatever.  How is pointing that out "bullying"?  I once  
> had to review a book for JBL
> by a fellow I had had several clashes with, and I couldn't pull any  
> punches.  I concluded by
> saying the book was not within the realm of what I would call  
> scholarship.  Is that bullying?  If
> you have a better way to state this kind of truth, I would be happy  
> to hear it.  I have suggested
> to Karl several times that he just start using his Delete key more  
> and ignore Jim, but I can't
> make those kinds of decisions for him.  He seems to feel that some  
> sort of answer is called
> for.  That's his prerogative.  In addition, not once in the  
> material you quoted did he engage in
> any kind of ad hominem; he addressed the ideas, theories, and the  
> unwarranted verbosity
> used to express them.  There's a big difference.
>  ?
> [snip]
> > and I see great value in using cognates in the analysis of  
> > Biblical Hebrew.? They are not perfect, but they are tremendously  
> > valuable.
>
> I use cognates myself on occasion, but their value is limited.   
> That's especially true for
> shirttail languages like Arabic or Egyptian.
>  ?
> > Does no one on this list see that XB and its expansions means "to  
> > join and?bind" and in some forms evolves bind up?> crowd in > push  
> > together > beat together > beat apart
>
> It would appear not.  And this gets us back into the etymological  
> fallacy, which has already
> been addressed.  For more info in it, see Donald Carson's book  
> "Exegetical Fallacies."
>
> Dave Washburn
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:26:08 -0800
> From: dwashbur AT nyx.net
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Cast Jim off the Island
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <49426670.5337.2E7BBFD AT dwashbur.nyx.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Agreed.  I'm not in favor of kicking someone out because their  
> ideas are off the mainstream;
> if that were the practice I would have been gone a long time ago.   
> If he starts getting abusive,
> that's grounds for expulsion.  But beyond that, I just suggest  
> extensive use of the Delete key.
>
> Dave Washburn
>
> On 13 Dec 2008 at 6:40, Bruce Prince wrote:
>
> > Dear People
> >
> > This type of backing and forthing reaches its limit all too soon,  
> > and we
> > have a tendency to forget that the world needs the Jim Stineharts  
> > just as
> > much as the Karl Randolphs. If somebody doesn't like one or the  
> > other,
> > simply press the Delete key; it is sooo easy. It is pointless in  
> > getting
> > upset and expending unnecessary energy on whinging and whining.
> >
> > Please brothers and sisters - some grace and patience.
> >
> > It costs nothing.
> >
> > Bruce Prince
> > Australia
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > John M. Linebarger wrote:
> > > Here is my politically incorrect opinion.  We should vote to cast  
> > > Jim
> > > Stinehart off of the b-hebrew island.  Isaac Freed has odd views,
> > > but at least he keeps his opinions short.  And Karl doesn't  
> > > bother me a
> > bit.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:44:54 +0200
> From: "Jason Hare" <jaihare AT gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Need Help With Trope Identification
> To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <bfe5ca6f0812121344l78372e04p139ddc72d5f48cd4 AT mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> John,
>
> I definitely agree with Yigal on this. Looks pretty obvious. Some  
> books even
> do this today, using the meteg/silluq as a tone indicator rather  
> than as a
> trope mark. The addition of etnachta is for phrase division.  
> Definitely
> seems to be the correct way to see this. Just wanted to state my  
> agreement.
>
> Regards,
> Jason Hare
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Yigal Levin  
> <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
>
> > Dear John,
> >
> > Is this from a Hebrew translation of Matthew. Because if it is,  
> > than these
> > are not properly "trope marks" at all. Remember, the Masoretes never
> > cantilized the New Testament, which is not part of the Hebrew  
> > Bible. The
> > writer/copiest/printer/whoever used Etnah marks to show the main  
> > stop in
> > each verse, and the marks that you are circled seem to simply have  
> > been
> > inserted in order to show where the accent is, to insure proper  
> > reading.
> >
> > Yigal Levin
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:36:15 -0800
> From: "Anthony Becker" <ABecker AT nerdshack.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Need Help With Trope Identification
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <000d01c95cba$cf1656f0$6d4304d0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="utf-8"
>
> For those who were curious, Brak?s text is:
>
>
>
> Cinquarbres,  
> Jean. ??????? ???????????: ??????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????????  
> ????????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ???????????? /  
> Sanctvm Domoni Nostri Iesu Christi Hebraicum Euangelium secundum  
> Matth?um. Paris: Marinum Iuuenem, 1551.
>
>
>
> Anthony
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:55:39 -0800
> From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Karl and Jim debate and more
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <acd782170812121655s5de67dc2r1c6cf9413755ac2f AT mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> David:
> I originally started writing this letter to you privately in  
> response to a
> private message from you to me, but now that you have made a public
> statement, I think it is apropos to send it in response to this  
> message
> instead.
>
> I got called on by the moderators for writing a bit more strongly  
> than I am
> wont to do because I was trying to grab Jim's attention.
>
> I wanted to learn modern Hebrew, but never got the chance. Now I  
> suspect
> that that was a blessing in disguise, as when I think in Hebrew, I  
> think in
> Biblical Hebrew without any corruption brought about mixing in cognate
> languages, like Arabic, Modern Israeli Hebrew or even Mishnaic Hebrew.
>
> One of the things that reading the text in Hebrew did was to change  
> the way
> I was thinking. On the web, there is an article that sums it up pretty
> well, http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Hebrew_thought . Hebrew  
> though, which
> is what the philosophers call it, emphasizes function over form,  
> action over
> repose, and it is while looking at the actions referred to by terms  
> that
> their relationships becomes clearer, or more clear that some words are
> homonyms with no connections other than form.
>
> As far as names are concerned, almost all have meanings. For  
> example, my
> first name means very similar to the Yiddish "Mensch", while both  
> my middle
> and last names mean "protecter" in different languages, but my  
> parents knew
> none of that when they named me. My parents named me after two of  
> my uncles.
> Likewise, when one looks in the Bible, though most names have a  
> meaning,
> most people were named after a family member, in remembrance to an  
> event
> that happened around their birth (Isaac, Samuel) or merely based on  
> how the
> parent felt at the time (Leah). Almost none of the names were  
> prescient as
> to the person's later role in life. Likewise most place names  
> merely refer
> to an event that happened there in the past, a natural feature of  
> the site
> or merely a name.
>
> But to draw up a etymology, one needs a historical record of language
> change. How much was there for Hebrew? If Hebrew was the language  
> spoken in
> the Garden of Eden, as believed by some, then it has no etymology  
> and any
> etymological lexicon is ipso facto false. There is no historical  
> evidence to
> say that Hebrew was not the original language. At the same time,  
> other than
> some hints in the Bible, there is no evidence that Hebrew was the  
> original
> language. All we have is the text as preserved in the Hebrew Bible  
> which
> shows almost no linguistic development. There is recognizable literary
> development, but that is not the same as linguistic development.
>
> But in one way Hebrew acts like other languages, is that people  
> could make
> nouns out of verbs, verbs out of adjectives, adjectives out of  
> nouns, and so
> forth. Those are grammar rules, not etymology.
>
> In order to work out an etymological system, we need a recorded  
> history.
> Especially for something as complex as human language. We have that  
> recorded
> history for English, as anyone can see when trying to read Chaucer  
> and the
> literature from then to now. We do not have it tying Biblical  
> Hebrew to any
> putative ancestral language. Due to the complexity of human  
> language, any
> etymological system built without historical records to base it on,  
> is most
> likely in error and speculative. It is part of my mental makeup that
> I abhor baseless speculation, hence my aversion to any system of  
> etymology
> that cannot be demonstrated by the surviving text.
>
> In closing, if you want to make etymological speculations, that is
> your prerogative. I am not stopping you. All I insist on is that we  
> are
> clear that this is speculation, therefore no one can insist that it is
> accurate. By the way, I do not see the XB connection that you claim  
> below,
> not all the words you list for Hebrew are found in Hebrew, some of the
> glosses you list are not strictly accurate and the actions are so  
> different.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> Ps: There were certain rules that we developed to prevent bitter  
> wrangling
> on this list:
> 1) Don't insist that your view of history is correct. That includes  
> your
> view on how the Hebrew language developed outside of what can be
> demonstrated by the surviving text.
> 2) Don't proselytize for your ideology. While I believe the Bible is
> accurate history, hence my understanding of the dating, I have been  
> careful
> to limit my statements to "the text as written" which leaves the  
> door open
> to those who believe that the Bible was myth written much later  
> with dates
> inserted to make it appear much older, not accurate history.
>
> kwr
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:16 PM, David Kolinsky  
> <yishalom AT sbcglobal.net>wrote:
>
> > Dear David
> >
> > I personally do see a great connection between
> >
> > XBL (rope, group, twist / writhe in pain) and
> > XBR (bind, join together)
> >
> > (perhaps not exactly as Jim does) as well as
> >
> > XWB (indebted (is bound))
> > XBB (embrace)
> > XB? (hide (emrbace oneself))
> >
> > XBSh (bind up, saddle, bind up in layers)
> > XBS (crush under enormous pressure)
> > XBTs^ (crowd, push, shove in Syriac) (beat into a pulp, scramble -  
> > Hebrew)
> > XBT^ (beat out, thresh)
> >
> > XBK (Arabic - braid, plate, weave, knit, draw tight, bind, make  
> > firm /
> > solid)
> > XBQ^ (Embrace, fold hands)
> >
> > and I see great value in using cognates in the analysis of Biblical
> > Hebrew.  They are not perfect, but they are tremendously valuable.
> >
> > Does no one on this list see that XB and its expansions means "to  
> > join
> > and bind" and in some forms evolves bind up > crowd in > push  
> > together >
> > beat together > beat apart
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > david kolinsky
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:24:43 +0200
> From: "Jason Hare" <jaihare AT gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Need Help With Trope Identification
> To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <bfe5ca6f0812130224n783f5c48xdcd07a7224deab73 AT mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Does it really have ????????????? ? First of all, it's got a  
> suffix, which
> would mean that there's no need for the heh-prefix. Secondly, the yod
> indicates that it's plural. The better word would be ?????????? for
> singular, without any heh-prefix. Are you sure about the name of this
> document?
>
> Jason Hare
> Rehovot, Israel
> 2008/12/13 Anthony Becker <ABecker AT nerdshack.com>
>
> > For those who were curious, Brak's text is:
> >
> >
> >
> > Cinquarbres,  
> > Jean. ??????? ???????????: ??????? ???????? ???????? ??????
> > ????????? ????????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? 
> > ?? /
> > Sanctvm Domoni Nostri Iesu Christi Hebraicum Euangelium secundum  
> > Matth?um.
> > Paris: Marinum Iuuenem, 1551.
> >
> >
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:35:45 +0200
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Need Help With Trope Identification
> To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <e6ea6c000812130735v5b1b483fqbfc7075207382bfe AT mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 12/13/08, Jason Hare wrote:
> > Does it really have ????????????? ? First of all, it's got a  
> > suffix, which
> > would mean that there's no need for the heh-prefix. Secondly, the yod
> > indicates that it's plural. The better word would be ?????????? for
> > singular, without any heh-prefix. Are you sure about the name of this
> > document?
>
> Dear Jason,
>
> The text tries to be Hebrew, but anyone reading something substantial
> will notice that the author who translated the text did not know  
> Hebrew
> well.  It also has a wider selection of trope marks which is why I  
> did not
> feel the tropes were used simply for division.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:44:56 +0000
> From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Need Help With Trope Identification
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <e6ea6c000812130944t79cb66d4lda26af3cae8d02aa AT mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:54 AM, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
> > Dear John,
> >
> > I suggest that this text is not in the Tiberian cantillation  
> > system, but
> > rather in the Nazarene cantillation system.  In the Tiberian system,
> > the sign you refer to would be the conjunctive merkha.  However, is
> > not the regular servant of atnax, that is munax.   Rather, the author
> > of this Hebrew text of Matthew copied from the Biblical cantillation
> > marks in Gen 25, without knowing what he is doing.  Thus, in Gen
> > 25:19, the last part of the verse reads avraham (tipxa) holid
> > (merkha) et-yitzhak (silluq).  Merkha is the conjunctive servant of
> > disjunctive silluq, and disjunctive tipxa can divide the clause  
> > before
> > silluq.  However, before atnax, the only conjunctive servant is  
> > munax.
>
> I want to explain this a little better:  In the Tiberian system,  
> there are
> various accent marks/tropes.  They are divided into two main groups
> -- conjunctive and disjunctive.  The verse can be seen as being
> divided into segments, each one ending in a disjunctive accent.  Each
> of this segment has only one disjunctive, in the final word.  The  
> other
> accent marks in the segment are conjunctive.  (It's possible for no
> conjunctives to appear in the segment if there is only one word,
> however).  The conjunctives that may appear in the segment are
> systematic and based on the disjunctive that marks that segment.
> Thus, if the disjunctive is silluq, you'd see a merkha.  If the  
> disjunctive
> is atnax, you'd see a munax.  Sometimes the rules are more complex.
> Thus, in the other thread, I mentioned the rule that if the  
> disjunctive is
> tabir, the conjunctive is merkha only if there is one syllable between
> the conjunctive and disjunctive.  Otherwise, the conjunctive that  
> would
> be used would be darga.  In any case, the verse shown in the scan
> uses merkha in a way that is inconsistent with these rules, probably
> indicating that whoever used the trope did not know the system well.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 72, Issue 12
> ****************************************