Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:11 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>
> Amalek = (ML + Q
>
> HALOT says definitively, as to the name (MLQ/“Amalek”:  “no linguistic
> explanation possible”.  But surely we on the b-Hebrew list can do better
> than
> that!
>
> That’s like demanding that we provide the Hebrew etymology for the word
PRDS found in Song of Songs 4:13.


> Let’s start by considering the well-known fact that an archaic ghayin is
> represented by an ayin in the Hebrew Masoretic Text, but by a G in the
> Greek
> Septuagint.  (First letter in Gaza or Gomorrah.)


Only sometimes, depending on who did the transliteration, when, and which
words.


>  In Hebrew, an archaic
> ghayin sounded a lot like a gimel/G, but definitely was not a true
> gimel/G.


Sometimes. If you had studied Hebrew, you would have known about the
Ayin/Ghayin controversy which claims that the Ayin was originally two
phonemes that were later combined into one letter. The reason it is a
controversy is because there is a minority that still doesn’t buy that
argument.

Another problem with your argument is that names are recycled, even were in
ancient times. Even in the Bible, as short as it is listing as few people as
it does, shows some recycling of names.

>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>

The rest of your article appears to have been based on the above fallacies,
according to a quick skimming, therefore I see no need to comment on it
further.

Still, you have your nested ifs, which you assume all go your way.

Karl W. Randolph.