Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

Dear Randall,
thank you.
But maybe your replay is too long.
I feel we would better send shorter posts... and besides this it would be
better (if possible!) a single issue for each post, methinks.
Do you, moderators, think so as well?

Pere Porta



On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> shalom Pere,
>
> Looking over the list from this month I see that you have had several
> questions that have not been given real answers or biblical
> Hebrew answers.
>
> First of all, your mi- question is valid. And It can be taken as a 'given'
> that Semitic languages have noun patterns that are NOT participles.
> This is easily demonstrated from comparitive linguistics, where we
> can compare the various traditions of Arabic, Hebrew, Phoenician,
> Syriac, Aramaic, Ugaritic (yes the alef forms give us a small glimpse
> into the vocalization system), and Akkadian. Having said this, it is also
> true that we do not have absolute certainty at many points along the
> trajectories of the various systems, where we can reconstruct eariler
> forms and later forms, but do not know exactly when and where the
> changes took place. I would recommend looking at the
> noun descriptions in Jouon-Muraka as a starting point (also available
> in French older edition). If you prefer German, there is the work of
> Bauer-Leander from about the same time as Jouon.
> But of course, the etymology of a word cannot predict a meaning.
> You will find that noun patterns and verb patterns have more than
> one kind of meaning.
>
> Your question on "Which reading?" is different:
>
> >The last word in Ps 91:7 is YIGF$, he will come near.
> I read in a version, that gives the Hebrew text transliterated to Latin
> characters, that this is read as "yigAsh" (vowel A).
> I'm wondering whether this reading is right as concerns vowel A.
> Is the qamats under gimel a normal qamats? Or rather is it a qamats qaton?
> The usual vowels for the Qal Imperf. 3rd person singular masculine of verbs
> pe-nun are I and O, as in Jb 14:18, Dt 32:43...
> If so, the A in "yigAsh" would be a qamats qaton and thus should be read as
> with vowel 'o': "yigOsh", as it happens too with verb "nafal" in Ps 35:8:
> Yipol and not Yipal.>
>
> That is an interesting verb in general, because the prefix-verb is from the
> Qal pattern but its suffix-tense verb is from the nif`al pattern. (This is
> a
> kind of thing called 'suppletion', where two verb patterns in history fuse
> into
> one verb, like 'go' and 'went' in English, eleusomai and Hlthon in Greek.
> Even
> halax and yelex in BH from different roots h-l-k, y-l-k.)
> The future/imperfect/modal of yiggash has an 'a' vowel. Lots of qal verbs
> in Hebrew and related languages have 'a' in their simple, prefix-verb
> conjugation. That verb was written in Psalm 91:7 with qamats
> because it was at a "slow" part of the verse where
> "pausal" forms occur. Pausal forms typically have a lengthed vowel and
> in many cases may preserve an older form of the language. A long
> 'a' is written by the Masoretes with qamats.
> The rule that you are applying "closed syllables must have short
> vowels" only works in unaccented syllables. If the Massoretes wrote
> yippol in a context where "-pol" received an accent they would write it
> with Holem. But because they removed the accent they had to write
> the 'o' sound with a corresponding short vowel, which is your
> qamats qaton.
>
> On a public elist any theory can be proposed, but they are not all
> equally probable or possible. For example, one of your responses
> proposed:
>
> >I previously mentioned that I think Biblical Hebrew was a CV
> (Consonant/Vowel) language (like Japanese) where every consonant was
> followed by a vowel. That would make YHWH a four syllable name. I took that
> a step further and said that there were no materes lectionis, that waw and
> yod never stood for a vowel in Biblical Hebrew, rather that every time that
> we find waw or yod in the text, it is to be pronounced as a consonant. When
> I try reading Biblical Hebrew poetry using these rules, I notice that there
> is a very definite rhythm, or beat, to the text that does not exist using
> other pronunciation rules. Does this prove my supposition? No, but it is
> evidence for it.
> >
> >I acknowledge that my theory may be wrong. But I do not consider evidence
> from the Masoretes as valid evidence against my theory."
>
> At least he acknowledges that his theory 'may' be wrong. Again, from
> comparative linguistics, Semitists know that his theory IS wrong. It
> cannot explain the development of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ge'ez and Arabic
> with their rich, genetically-related morphologies that all include CVC
> patterns,
> none of which supports the view that proto-western Semitic was ever a
> CV language. For that matter, even Afro-Asiatic does not appear to have
> been a CV language. Even if it were, in the unrecoverable mists,
> CVC syllables developed long before Semitic divided into West and
> East or the West divided into North and South,
> or the NorthWest divided into Cana`anite and Aramaic.
> So not only did Biblical Hebrew have CVC syllables, but proto-Hebrew as
> well.
>
> Again, I would start with Jouon-Muraka so that you will be 'in the
> ballpark',
> to use an American phrase, for reasonably close.
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>



-- 
Pere Porta
"Ei nekrói ouk eguéirontai, fágomen kai píomen áurion gar apothnéskomen"
(1Cor 15:32)