Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

[KarlR]
>Where derivatives can be connected to roots,
> I tend to take them more seriously than many modern
> lexicographers, but I have a high standard before I allow that a word
> can be a derivative of a particular root.

[RB]
So you are saying that y.r.d. can have a derived adjective *rad.

So I am asking show another 1st-y- root with such an adjective.

You haven't produced one, just philosophized.



[KarlR]
> ... It is the *Konkordanz
> zum hebräischen Alten Testament* by ... Gerhard Lisowsky,
>...  I agree with
> him that it is from the root YRD but I question whether it is a qal. It is
>the context and other uses that lead me to agree with him.

So you quetioned whether it was a qal verb,
and now you agree that "rad" is a qal verb?
Or you meant 'disagree with him', which leads back to the preceeding question?


> [RB]
>> Try the verb y.sh.b.  'reside, sit, remain' "in the land". You've brought
>> ... no precedent for such a sense of the verb with this preposition ...
>
[KarlR]
> You don’t consider context a precedent?

[RB]
The context makes great sense as 'reside, stay in the Land',
i.e., don't leave the covenant land, EretzIsrael.

So now you need to explain how shuv with "b" means 'return within'.
This does not explain the sense of shuv
with 'b', because shuv points to an origin while 'b' is only a means and not
the goal (or metaphorically negative 'against'),
The ancients unanimously (as far as I can tell) read differently from you.
Your Hebrew is better?


>
>> (RB) PS: a "shegolate noun [sic]" would be a profanity,

[KarlR]
> How is it a profanity? On second thought, I don’t want to know. I’m
> happy in my ignorance in this matter.

[RB]
don't worry, it's only profane in BH, not English


> [RB]
>> But you haven't stated what the word actually IS. Just what word are
>> you claiming is correct, and what word are you claiming that the
>> Masoretes got wrong?
...

[RB]
still no answer to what you are claiming, just negative remarks about
what it isn't.

...

[KarlR]
>When context, syntax and grammar all favor one reading, and the MT
>sits alone with another, why not go with the majority evidence?

[RB]
Well, for one, the MT is not a 'typo'. It is a tradition that needs
explaining. Always explain and understand the MT, no matter what
else you say about a verse. The MT is a monument like no other,
not perfect, but with astounding integrity.


>
>
> [KarlR]
>>>... SeBeTe ... Or with the
>>>suffix as in this verse as SeBeTiYa.  ...
>
> [RB]
>> I assume that you intended "$" for "S" in the paragraph above.

[KarlR]
> I was thinking of the English ‘s’.

Now you've really mixed things up.
Are you arguing that shin should be pronounced close to English 's'?
Or are you arguing that the text should be re-written with samex?


[RB]
>> So it appears that you are arguing for a new word *shebete that is not the
>> infinitive from y.sh.b. ?

[KarlR]
>Nah, not a new word. Just one found on page 1403 of the concordance
>whose title I listed above.

[RB]
Since SeBeTe doesn't exist in any Hebrew dictionary that I know of, and
since I don't have Lisowsky, why don't you describe the word more fully
and then we can see what you are claiming?
It appears that you were arguing that
SeBeTe [sic] is
a. not an infinitive
b  but yes, a shegolate noun [sic].
c. because a modern concordance distinguished 'a' from 'b'.

instead of philosophizing about what 'isn't'
a simple 'I claim this'
would save time.

Qaddari and EvenShoshan list a noun shevet,
but as a negative word meaning 'idleness'. Apparently, they take the
positive examples as the infinitive from y.sh.b.



--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life