Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

David,

you can rest assured that the claim for intensity or repetitiveness  
for the Piel is, not only factually, but also inherently, baloney.  
The belief that $ABAR is for two pieces but $IBER is for many pieces,  
that QABAR is for one corpse but QIBER is for many corpses, that  
$ATAL is for one tree but $ITEL is for many trees, is an obvious  
fizzle. The "reduplication of the middle radical" is also in my  
opinion a linguistic fata morgana.
Piel is a root augmented by to infixed personal pronouns for the  
actors, that's all. It is like the Hipil except in this latter binyan  
the first personal pronoun is prefixed.
Present-day Hebrew makes great use of Piel to create verbs of shifted  
meaning, say, $ATAQ, 'kept quiet' versus $ITEQ, 'paralalyzed'.  
Indeed, in Jeremiah 12:13 QACAR is 'reaped', but in Psalms 102:24  
QICER is 'cut short'.
Also, verbal forms out of foreign words: TILPEN out of telephone,  
FIXES out of fax, FIRMET out of format.

Isaac Fried

On Feb 9, 2009, at 5:12 PM, David Kummerow wrote:

> Isaac,
>
> We can hardly "rest assured" by your claim when a) you have  
> provided no
> substantiation of your claim, nor interaction with the arguments of
> Greenberg, Fehri, Kaufman, etc.; and b) you have demonstrated  
> consistent
> linguistic incompetence in other areas and an unwillingness to learn
> linguistic method. As such, your claims of "sheer nonsense" can simply
> be dismissed.
>
> Greenberg particularly has provided the typological background for
> understanding the verbal form. Under such an analysis, the  
> reduplication
> of the middle radical is both predictable and explainable.
>
> Of course, as I've stated previously, the verbal plurality function of
> the Piel I take as one of its functions, with a
> resultative/causative/estimative function of (generally) stative verbs
> being its other main function, as Jenni and others have shown.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
>
>
> > You can rest assured that the the claim of intensity or repetition
> > (RAKAD versus RIKED) for the Hebrew piel is sheer nonsense.
> >
> > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> >
> > On Feb 9, 2009, at 7:37 AM, Peter Bekins wrote:
> >
> > > Yitzhak,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the plug. For what it is worth, I personally disagree  
> > > with
> > > Goetze and lean towards the view that the doubling indicates
> > > plurality as is common in Semitic (and non-Semitic) languages. This
> > > was argued well by Joseph Greenberg (though I haven't put up a
> > > summary of this paper yet):
> > >
> > > Greenberg, Joseph H. “The Semitic ‘intensive’ as verbal  
> > > plurality: a
> > > study of grammaticalization. Pages 577-587 in Semitic studies in
> > > honor of Wolf Leslau on the occasion of his eighty-fifth birthday.
> > > Edited by Alan S Kaye. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1991.
> > >
> > > I summarize Kouwenberg's study of the D-stem (piel) in Akkadian in
> > > which he reaches the same conclusions:
> > >
> > > http://balshanut.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/kouwenberg-njc-gemination-
> > > in-the-akkadian-verb-studia-semitica-neerlandica-33-assen-van-
> > > gorcum-1997/
> > >
> > > Peter Bekins
> > >
> > > On Feb 9, 2009, at 12:52 AM, b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org  
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Peter Bekins discusses one article on the Piel here:
> > > > http://balshanut.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/goetze-albrecht-the-so-
> > > > called-intensive-of-the-semitic-languages-jaos-vol-62-no-1-
> > > > march-1942-1-8/
> > > >
> > > > Also relevant is his discussion here:
> > > > http://balshanut.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/the-complicated-
> > > > morphology-of-the-semitic-binyanim/
> > > >
> > > > Yitzhak Sapir
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > ---
> >
> > Subject:
> > Re: [b-hebrew] Word pairs in biblical and semitic literatures
> > From:
> > fred putnam <fred.putnam AT gmail.com>
> > Date:
> > Mon, 9 Feb 2009 08:46:54 -0500
> > To:
> > Olivier Randrianjaka <rev_oli AT hotmail.com>
> >
> > To:
> > Olivier Randrianjaka <rev_oli AT hotmail.com>
> > CC:
> > b-hebrew Forum <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>,  
> > steve AT voiceinwilderness.info
> >
> >
> > Dear Olivier,
> >
> > Good question!
> >
> > Hendiadys is a phenomenon of general human thought and language;  
> > it is not
> > restricted or special to the biblical writings. Identifying a  
> > hendiadys is
> > more of an art than a science, and not everyone agrees that every  
> > pair is or
> > is not a hendiadys.
> >
> > There are probably two primary kinds hendiadys: "parallel" and
> > "complementary".
> >
> > In parallel hendiadys two verbs, nouns, or other forms together  
> > refer to a
> > single entity or idea, as though the thing referred to were  
> > divided into its
> > two main components, e.g., "ladies and gentlemen" (= everyone here  
> > present),
> > "going out and coming in" (= all the affairs of life).
> >
> > But not everyone agrees. Some biblical scholars see, for example,  
> > "heaven[s]
> > and earth" (Gn 1.1) as a hendiadys for "everything" or as the  
> > biblical way
> > of referring to what we now call the "universe", others view them as
> > identifying the basic components of our physical--earth and sky-- 
> > without any
> > reference beyond human sense apprehension.
> >
> > In complementary hendiadys two verbal forms have the same conjugation
> > ["tense"], subject (person, gender, number), and are linked by a  
> > conjunction
> > (W-); they do not need to have the same stem/binyan. The first verbal
> > modifies the second. MHR and $KM can mean "do X quickly" and "do X  
> > early in
> > the morning", respectively, HLK can mean "do X more and more [or
> > continually]", and $WB can mean "do X again" ("X" = the second  
> > verbal). This
> > does not mean that MHR, $KM, HLK, and $WB do have their "regular" or
> > "normal" function, but rather that they may sometimes modify  
> > another verb.
> >
> > I hope that this is helpful.
> >
> > Peace.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> > Dear Putnam,
> >
> > I am glad to get your reply, but may I bother you a little bit?  
> > Could you
> > tell me please how do you recognize that such occurence is a  
> > hendiadys or
> > not. Are you using software or book or this is becase of your good  
> > knowledge
> > of biblical hebrew?
> >
> > Thanks for your helps
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Olivier Randrianjaka
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM, fred putnam  
> > <fred.putnam AT gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Olivier,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your note.
> > >
> > > I've glanced quickly at occurrences of CHESED ... WEMETH with  
> > > eight words
> > > of each other in a single v. (28 occurrences). Their use suggests  
> > > that they
> > > can be considered a word-pair, even though (as you point out)  
> > > they normally
> > > primarily as a hendiadys (23xx), since they also occur five times as
> > > parallel terms in synonymously parallel lines (Pss 57.11; 69.14;  
> > > 108.5;
> > > 117.2; Is 16.5); perhaps we should add Josh 2.12 to this list,  
> > > even though
> > > its parallel clauses are not poetic lines.
> > >
> > > So perhaps they were primarily a hendiadys that could also be  
> > > split between
> > > parallel lines so that they functioned as a word-pair (again, as  
> > > the latter
> > > term has come to be used).
> > >
> > > Great question!
> > >
> > > Peace.
> > >
> > > Fred
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Olivier Randrianjaka  
> > > <rev_oli AT hotmail.com>wrote:
> > >
> > > >  Fred Putnam,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your contribution, I am quite brand new in this  
> > > > and I am
> > > > wondering according to your explanation whether paired words  
> > > > like CHESED
> > > > WEMETH, which is sometimes should be translated as a "hendiadys"  
> > > > are also
> > > > classified as word pairs.
> > > > Thanks for your helps.
> > > >
> > > > Olivier Randrianjaka
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 19:07:22 -0500
> > > > > From: fred.putnam AT gmail.com
> > > > > To: l_barre AT yahoo.com
> > > > > CC: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; steve AT voiceinwilderness.info
> > > > > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Word pairs in biblical and semitic  
> > > > > literatures
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Lloyd,
> > > > >
> > > > > Word-pairs tend to occur in parallel poetic lines, as you  
> > > > > suggest, and
> > > > the
> > > > > pairs that you list from Pr 10.1b-c are, of course, semanticaly  
> > > > > parallel
> > > > > pairs *in this verse*, but this is not really the way that the  
> > > > > term has
> > > > come
> > > > > to be used in the study of ANE poetry (on which see my earlier  
> > > > > post).
> > > > >
> > > > > To use the same example, "wise/foolish" and "father/mother" are
> > > > word-pairs,
> > > > > since they occur together, and in this order, not infrequently  
> > > > > in the
> > > > Bible.
> > > > > But are "makes glad" and "heaviness" a word-pair? [I cite the same
> > > > version
> > > > > for consistency.] The piel of SMX [Sorry--I don't have my
> > > > transliteration
> > > > > scheme to hand.] occurs 26xx (times) in Biblical Hebrew (15 of  
> > > > > which are
> > > > in
> > > > > Pss/8xx & Pro/7xx--it is a more-or-less "poetic" form). None of  
> > > > > its
> > > > > occurences parallel TWGH, apart from Pr 10.1. Even in Jer  
> > > > > 31.13, where
> > > > the
> > > > > "mourning", "joy", "sorrow", "rejoicing", &c. occur--with several
> > > > "slots"
> > > > > into which TWGH would seem to fit--it does not occur. This  
> > > > > suggests
> > > > quite
> > > > > strongly that the verb SMX and noun TWGH are not a word-pair.
> > > > >
> > > > > TWGH occurs only 4xx (Ps 119.28 (no parallel); Pr 10.1; 14.13;  
> > > > > 17.21),
> > > > so
> > > > > there is not much evidence upon which to identify them as a pair.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the other hand, TWGH is either the predicate or subject of  
> > > > > Pr 14.13b,
> > > > > where it occurs with--but does not parallel--the noun SMXH; in  
> > > > > Pr 17.21
> > > > it
> > > > > parallels the qal of SMX, but their order is opposite that of  
> > > > > Pr 10.1
> > > > (TWGH
> > > > > in 17.21a, qal of SMX in 17.21b). While this implies that these  
> > > > > roots
> > > > were
> > > > > understood as antonyms--SMX is negated in order to create a  
> > > > > synonymous
> > > > > parallelism--it does not establish their identity as a word- 
> > > > > pair; there
> > > > is
> > > > > not a large enough sampling to draw this conclusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope that this makes sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for asking, Steve--this is an interesting line of  
> > > > > conversation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peace.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fred
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 6:06 PM, LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com>  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Words used in parallel members--matching subject, verbs, objects,
> > > > > > adjectives etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A wise son maketh a glad father:
> > > > > > but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Wise son" is paired with "foolish son," "maketh glad" is  
> > > > > > paired with
> > > > > > "heaviness" and "father" is paired with "mother."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lloyd Barré
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On Sat, 2/7/09, Steve Miller <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Steve Miller <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Word pairs in biblical and semitic  
> > > > > > literatures
> > > > > > To: "'b-hebrew Forum'" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > > > > > Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 1:16 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can someone please explain: What is a word-pair? Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > -Steve Miller
> > > > > > Detroit
> > > > > > www.voiceInWilderness.info
> > > > > > And I saw: and behold, a black horse, and he that sat upon it  
> > > > > > having a
> > > > > > balance in his hand. And I heard as a voice in the midst of  
> > > > > > the four
> > > > > > living
> > > > > > creatures saying, A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and  
> > > > > > three quarts
> > > > of
> > > > > > barley for a day's wages: and do not injure the oil and the  
> > > > > > wine. (Rev
> > > > > > 6:5b-6)
> > > > > > The chariot in which are the black horses goes forth into the  
> > > > > > land of
> > > > the
> > > > > > north. (Zech 6:6a)
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
> > > > > > > bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Spinti
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:30 PM
> > > > > > > To: b-hebrew Forum
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Word pairs in biblical and semitic
> > > > literatures
> > > > > > > Not terribly recent, but have you looked at the 3 volumes of Ras
> > > > Shamra
> > > > > > > Parallels from Biblical Institute Press?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > HTH,
> > > > > > > James
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > James Spinti
> > > > > > > Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
> > > > > > > Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 30 years
> > > > > > > Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
> > > > > > > jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
> > > > > > > Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
> > > > > > > Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
> > > > > > > Fax: 574-269-6788
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
> > > > > > > bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Randrianjaka
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:53 AM
> > > > > > > To: george.athas AT moore.edu.au; b-hebrew Forum
> > > > > > > Subject: [b-hebrew] Word pairs in biblical and semitic  
> > > > > > > literatures
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all of you!!I am looking for the most recent works concerning
> > > > Word
> > > > > > > pairs studies in Biblical as well as in ancient Semitic  
> > > > > > > literatures,
> > > > CAN
> > > > > > > ANYONE HELP?Thanks a lot. Olivier RandrianjakaPhD Student  
> > > > > > > atMission
> > > > > > School
> > > > > > > and TheologyStavanger, Norway
> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ 
> > > > > > > _
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > --)---------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Fred Putnam
> > > > >
> > > > > Philadelphia Biblical University
> > > > >
> > > > > 215-702-4502 (office/voicemail)
> > > > > 215-393-9683 (home)
> > > > > www.fredputnam.org (website)
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > Découvrez tout ce que Windows Live a à vous apporter !<http:// 
> > > > www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --)---------------
> > >
> > > Fred Putnam
> > >
> > > Philadelphia Biblical University
> > >
> > > 215-702-4502 (office/voicemail)
> > > 215-393-9683 (home)
> > > www.fredputnam.org (website)
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > ---
> >
> > Subject:
> > Re: [b-hebrew] B in Gen 1:1 (was Hebrew considerations)
> > From:
> > K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
> > Date:
> > Mon, 9 Feb 2009 08:13:45 -0800
> > To:
> > b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >
> > To:
> > b-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >
> >
> > Lloyd:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 3:35 PM, LM Barre <l_barre AT yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Context decides.  The waters are not created in Gen 1:2.  They  
> > > pre-exist as
> > > in Egyptian cosmology.
> >
> > Here you are reading your presuppositions into the text.
> >
> > There is nothing here in the text itself that indicates that the  
> > waters
> > pre-existed. This is a rather simple piece of prose where
> > the exegetical reading of the text indicate that the waters were  
> > created as
> > part of the creation of the earth.
> >
> > Many of us consider eisegesis (reading ideas into the text which  
> > are not
> > explicitly there) as invalid. Further that is a practice of  
> > theology, not
> > linguistic analysis.
> >
> > > Lloyd Barré, PhD
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > ---
> >
> > Subject:
> > Re: [b-hebrew] Hyksos
> > From:
> > K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
> > Date:
> > Mon, 9 Feb 2009 08:27:01 -0800
> > To:
> > b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >
> > To:
> > b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >
> >
> > Yigal:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Yigal Levin  
> > <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Bryant,
> > >
> > > I fail to see even the slightest connection to Hebrew language in  
> > > this
> > > thread. So it will not be allwed to cary too far. From a  
> > > historical point
> > > of
> > > view, it's adding speculation on top of speculation - what's the  
> > > point?
> > >
> > > Yigal Levin
> >
> > I can see the connection, though more as a definitional question.
> >
> > In other contexts, the royal family ruling the country has been  
> > called by
> > the name of that country, even when ethnically they are not of the  
> > country.
> > So what Bryant is asking, is it within the context of the Hebrew  
> > language
> > that the Hyksos, the ruling class in Egypt, would be called  
> > "Egyptian" in
> > spite of the fact that they were asiatic Semites? I have wondered  
> > the same
> > question before myself.
> >
> > The only problem I can see is that we have too little information  
> > to give a
> > definite answer to that question.
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > ---
> >
> > Subject:
> > Re: [b-hebrew] Iron and Curses in Deuteronomy 28
> > From:
> > K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
> > Date:
> > Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:12:34 -0800
> > To:
> > B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >
> > To:
> > B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >
> >
> > Yitzhak:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Yitzhak Sapir  
> > <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 8:10 PM, K Randolph wrote:
> > >
> > > > Uh, Yitzhak, before answering this, I checked every verse that you
> > > > mentioned, found that you gave the wrong numbers for a couple,  
> > > > and read
> > > > meanings into the text that the text cannot support when reading
> > > carefully.
> > > > As for the URLs, I already gave them, why should I repeat  
> > > > myself? The
> > > same
> > > > with some of the other arguments you repeated?
> > > Karl,
> > >
> > > Before answering this you should have taken a deep breath, and asked
> > > yourself, is it possible, in an even remote way, that it is your  
> > > Bible
> > > whose
> > > verse numbers are off for Ex 20:22-23?
> >
> > Possible, but unlikely. So far I have found no where where the  
> > consonantal
> > text differs from the WLC, and after your question here, checked  
> > and it
> > doesn't here either.
> >
> > > Really, your reluctance to provide your sources is your own  
> > > disadvantage.
> >
> >
> > I already did, so why should I do it again specifically for you?
> >
> > > But it is your expectation that others provide evidence when you  
> > > won't
> > > follow through, that other explain their "misreadings" when it is  
> > > your
> > > reading that should be explained, and in the above paragraph  
> > > relating to
> > > abject ignorance, your simple failure to say you're sorry that is  
> > > really
> > > offensive.
> >
> > Why should I say I'm sorry for your mistake?
> >
> > > Yitzhak Sapir
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > ---
> >
> > Subject:
> > Re: [b-hebrew] Iron and Curses in Deuteronomy 28
> > From:
> > Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> > Date:
> > Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:44:56 +0000
> > To:
> > B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >
> > To:
> > B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:12 PM, K Randolph wrote:
> >
> > > > Before answering this you should have taken a deep breath, and  
> > > > asked
> > > > yourself, is it possible, in an even remote way, that it is your  
> > > > Bible
> > > > whose
> > > > verse numbers are off for Ex 20:22-23?
> >
> > > Possible, but unlikely. So far I have found no where where the  
> > > consonantal
> > > text differs from the WLC, and after your question here, checked  
> > > and it
> > > doesn't here either.
> >
> > The verse divisons are not part of the consonantal text, but part  
> > of the
> > cantillation.  Just because the WLC is placed online  
> > electronically does not
> > mean you know how to read it correctly.
> >
> > Read here: http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/shavuot/ofe.html
> > (I would translate the relevant points but you can read  
> > consonantal Hebrew).
> >
> > Yitzhak Sapir
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > ---
> >
> > Subject:
> > Re: [b-hebrew] Iron and Curses in Deuteronomy 28
> > From:
> > K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
> > Date:
> > Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:51:55 -0800
> > To:
> > "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >
> > To:
> > "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >
> >
> > Yitzhak:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Yitzhak Sapir  
> > <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Harold,
> > >
> > > …
> > > I think your reading of Num 35 is very very forced.  If the author
> > > went through the trouble of differentiating iron from wood or stone,
> > > and metal weapons were generally available also in bronze, it
> > > would have been appropriate to add a listing for bronze.
> >
> >
> > Two things:
> >
> > 1) The word in Hebrew is not "weapon", rather "implement". While  
> > it is true
> > that weapons are a subset of implements, this would include all  
> > the tools
> > that a working man would more likely have in his hand, like hoes,  
> > hammers,
> > etc. which were more likely made of iron than more expensive  
> > bronze. (As far
> > as I can tell, there was no specialized word in Biblical Hebrew for
> > "weapon".)
> >
> > 2) As far as I can tell, there was no word in Biblical Hebrew for  
> > generic
> > "metal", hence listing one, and possibly the one most common for  
> > implements,
> > would stand in for all metals (implements of gold and silver can  
> > also kill,
> > but would be very, very unlikely in the hands of a working man).
> >
> > > Yitzhak Sapir
> >
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > ---
> >
> > Subject:
> > Re: [b-hebrew] Exodus 18:26 - Y$PW+W
> > From:
> > K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
> > Date:
> > Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:15:17 -0800
> > To:
> > "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >
> > To:
> > "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >
> >
> > Jason:
> >
> > 2009/2/8 Jason Hare <jaihare AT gmail.com>
> >
> > > Exodus 18:26
> > > וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת-הָעָם בְּכָל-עֵת  
> > > אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה יְבִיאוּן
> > > אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְכָל-הַדָּבָר  
> > > הַקָּטֹן יִשְׁפּוּטוּ הֵם׃
> > > W$P+W )T-H(M BKL-(T )T-HDBR HQ$H YBY)WN )L-M$H WKL-HDBR HQ+N Y$PW 
> > > +W HM
> > >
> > > I'm just wondering what the form Y$PW+W is there. Shouldn't it be
> > > יִשְׁפְּטוּ Y$P+W instead of יִשְׁפּוּטוּ Y 
> > > $PW+W? Is there a special
> > > significance to this form?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jason Hare
> > > Rehovot, Israel
> >
> >
> > One of the things that took a while getting used to when reading  
> > the text
> > without points is that the materes lexionis are optional, i.e. they
> > sometimes are included, sometimes not. In this case, I read this  
> > as a simple
> > Qal imperfective.
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > ---
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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