Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> [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.
>

I haven’t looked for one. I don’t have time right now to do so.

Of those derivatives from peh-yod roots where the yod is dropped, it appears
that they have their heh or tau suffixes for reasons other than that they
dropped their yods.

>
>
> [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?
>

I question whether it is a qal verb, but I agree with him that it is from
YRD.

>
>
> > [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.
>

Yes, but is that the only data we have?

>
> 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'),
>

You are a professor of Hebrew, and you forget that the B- prefix is often
used locatively?


> The ancients unanimously (as far as I can tell) read differently from you.
> Your Hebrew is better?
>

Not better than the ancients, not by a long shot, but maybe better than
yours.

>
>
> > [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.
>
> What???!!!?!? This is ridiculous! Go back over past messages. If you don’t
understand it, tell me in detail what you don’t understand about my previous
answers.

> ...
>
> [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.
>
> Who said it was a ‘typo’?

Yet, like all works of men, it is flawed. For example, in over 90% of the
KeTiB—QeRe) pairs, the KeTiB makes better sense than the QeRe). That is not
counting the theologically driven pronunciation of YHWH.

One of the reasons I stopped reading with points is because there are many
verses I noticed as I was reading, where the points indicate one meaning,
but the context, syntax and grammar indicate another. But as I said, I did
not record them.

>
> >
> >
> > [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?
>

There was a long discussion a few years back where I made the point that
apparently the sin/shin letter originally had one pronunciation, and it was
probably close to the English ‘s’. The samek originally had a different
pronunciation. Google it if you want to read it.

>
>
> [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'.
>

I already gave a couple of verses where it is used as a noun, go back and
look at them. The only evidence that it is not a noun in Psalm 23:6 is the
MT pointing; all other evidence points to a noun.

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