Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com>]

Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Brakwrote:
>   
> > > Since I'm sure we've run through the guard interrogative/definite article
> > > example quite a bit, and since my example of the queen and her king
> > > seems to have lost something in the translation, I figured some more
> > > examples might be useful:
> > >       
> > Yeah - I had no idea what that (the queen/king comment) meant. lol :)
> >     
>
> I hope you understand it now.
>   
Nope - still don't. lol
> > > qivcu "gather them!" 1 Sam 7:5
> > > qibbacu "they gathered" Joel 2:6
> > >       
> > Vowel signs are different.
> >     
>
> Huh?
>   
The second word has a patah that the first doesn't.
> > > xizqu "be strong!" Deut 31:6
> > > xizzaqu "they strengthened" Jer 5:3
> > >       
> > Vowel signs are different.
> >     
>
> Huh??
>   
The second word has a patah that the first doesn't.
> (Just add additional question marks to the
> "Huh" in the following examples).
>   
Just add additonal "The second word has a [insert vowel sign] that the 
first doesn't." to them. lol
> > is18:5,9 <NIC.FH> - Common Noun, Feminine Plural of <NIC.FH>
> > gn40:10,7 <NIC./FH.> - Common Noun, Masculine Singular of <N"C> / Suffix:3rd
> > Person Feminine Singular
> >
> > In this example you were half way there - they two words are identical
> > graphically except for a variation in the dagesh marks. But they have
> > different morpheme breaks. The first is just one morpheme, but the second is
> > two - a "base" and a suffix. So this example doesn't apply to my question.
> >     
>
> I wouldn't know.  You never answered my questions allowing me to
> understand what you want.
>   
I tried. Oh my did I try. lol
> > > middavar "over the words of" 2 Sam 19:44
> > > midbar "desert" Ex 19:1
> > >       
> > Vowel signs are different.
> >     
>
> Huh again...
>   
Again: The second word has a patah that the first doesn't.
> > > There even appears one case where a dagesh qal appears phonemic:
> > > licvo "to be on duty" Nu 4:23, Num 8:24
> > > licbo "to fight against" Is 31:4
> > > However, [b] and [v] are already known to be phonemic in Tiberian
> > > Hebrew.  In fact, in the above example, perhaps Num 4:23, 8:24 are
> > > derived from the Qal of cwy but have come to be spelled as lcb)
> > > because the Qal is so rare.  If this is the case, it might suggest
> > > the w > v shift in Israel was very early.
> > >       
> > nu4:23,13 and nu8:24,10 <LI/C:BO)> - Preposition / Qal Common of <CB)>
> > is31:4,27 <LI/C:B.O)> - Preposition / Qal Common of <CB)>
> > This one meets all the criteria except for a major one- they all mean the
> > same thing.
> > Where are you getting the translation variation from?
> >     
>
> Where are you getting your Bible from?  Really, you are complaining the
> vocalization is not the same but in the first example up above, it is exact.
> Even the cantillation mark is the same.  I am using here the Breuer Bible
>  which marks deviations in the Aleppo and Leningrad codices and it doesn't
> mark any for the above verse!  Maybe your Bible marks a schewa na with a
> hataf but then that is not in the manuscript.  (I would verify it against the
> WLC online Tanach right now, but it's not loading).
>   
The Bible I am using is the WLC.
The words are the same as you said - but they have the same meaning as 
well. I am asking for words with different meaning. You stated however 
that these words have different meaning. So I am asking what your source 
is for the difference in meaning.

> In any case, the translation here is based on HALOT.  Have you considered
> reading these verses?  I think even a basic reading shows that the ideas are
> conceptually rather different: In Num. the people are coming to work and in
> Isaiah God is going to fight.
>   
According to the morpheme data in BibleWorks (which is based on the WLC 
MORPH) they are the same.
They are both Preposition / Qal Common of <CB)>. And yes I looked up 
every text you gave.

> > > Note: None of the above information may be used in commercial
> > > projects of any kind, including (but not limited to) translations
> > > and/or websites that charge a fee for entering or using parts of
> > > that website.
> > >       
> > lol - You can't copyright information. :)
> >     
>
> Well, I don't really intend to go into a long argument on this.
> Just don't go and use the examples I'm giving you in commercial works.
> The above was not information that was easy to come by.  I got it using
> a computer program that I wrote, using html files from Mechon Mamre.
> Mechon Mamre copyrights the work and effort placed into encoding the
> Bible and their verification of it on the computer.  You can look at their
> copyright notice here:  http://mechon-mamre.org/
> Anyway, I am providing you the results of this effort on the understanding
> that you would not make commercial use of it and that if you do, you agree
> to fully compensate me for my work on my own terms, and also for you to
> comply with whatever expectations the people at Mechon Mamre will request.
> But none of this should concern you unless you were asking us to do the
> work from which you expect to profit commercially.
>   
I know the people at Mechon Mamre. In fact I helped to clean up the 
errors/typos in their Mishnah and Talmud texts. They can only claim 
copyright on the texts that they have changed. For example in the 
Mishnah and Talmud they updated the language to a more modern form of 
Hebrew - hence they can copyright it. But the older versions of the 
texts which were just transcriptions are copyright free - as they can 
not legal impose any on it. this is all straight from their mouth.

You CAN NOT place any restriction on the info you give on this forum. 
None of us can!
You may be able to place limits on format the info is given - but not 
the info itself.
Its like the info in a phonebook. I can't photocopy a bunch of pages and 
sell it - but I can freely take that data and put it in a different 
format and do what ever I want with it.

So if you don't want people freely using the info you give - then DON'T 
GIVE IT!

If I'm wrong about any of this - then please have the moderators respond 
to refute it.

> And for what it's worth, the computer program didn't invent new vowel
> signs.  It only knows to match up vowel signs that are exact.
>   
I didn't say you invented new vowel signs. I'm just stating that the 
words in the groupings you gave have a vowel variation along with the 
dagesh sign variation. And my question was about words with JUST a 
dagesh sign variation.


B"H
John Steven