Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

Karl,
this view of yours (Pr 1:19) implies that the second BC( starts the second
sentence.
Even if we strip away the points, this pausal form (vowelized as such) says
to us that ancients understood the second BC( as an "internal object" of the
first BC(.

And thus belonging to the first sentence and not to the second one as it
appears to be in your translation draft...

 Is it likely that a pausal form starts a sentence?
I'd rather say that a pausal form SHUTS a sentence...
(By the way, beside this, take into account that B(LYW is in plural and not
in singular)

To better see the different meaning implied in different pointing
possibilities I think you should provide another more clear example than Pr
1:19.

But calmly, please, no need that you give another sample in 24 hours.

Hearty,

Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)

On 15 June 2010 08:37, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Pere:
>
> I did give a couple of examples.
>
> One, because the mail server messed up my message, I quote again,
> concerning
> Proverbs 1:19:
>
> Let’s use the example of Proverbs 1:19.
>
>
> The first step, strip away the points. The points were not original are
> sometimes wrong. Even if they are wrong as few as 1% of the time, that is
> too often for me. From a seat of the pants impression, the points are wrong
> 2–5% of the time. If one tries to keep to the points when they are wrong,
> it
> can lead to some real mental gymnastics. It’s no problem if the points are
> correct, but we can’t assume that. In this example, that gives us:
>
>
> KN )RXWT KL BC( BC( )T NP$ B(LYW YQX
>
> כן ארחות כל בצע בצע את נפש בעליו יקח
>
>
> The next step is to analyze this grammatically. Do we have complete
> sentences (possibly it is a continuation of a previous verse, or it
> continues into the next verse, so context is part of this step)? From the
> context, we see that this is a stand alone verse, so the complete
> sentence(s) are internal.
>
>
> Concurrently with this step, look for any words in their contexts that may
> take two or more pointings, hence two or more divergent meanings. In the
> two
> partial sentences below, none of the words will give a problem, so I won’t
> go very much into this question with this verse.
>
>
> Do the first three words make up a sentence?
>
>
> KN )RXWT KL  כן ארחות כל
>
>
> While the first word KN can have an implied “to be” making another verb
> surplus, it can also have another verb: the context asks for more than just
> these three words. It does not make sense as a complete sentence in this
> context.
>
>
> Do the final four words make up a complete sentence?
>
>
> )T NP$ B(LYW YQX  את נפש בעליו יקח
>
>
> Here we have a verb and an object, but no subject—incomplete sentence.
>
>
> As pointed, BC( BC(  בצע בצע are a compound verb, but as a compound verb,
> do
> they fit either partial sentence? If attached to the second, that gives two
> verbs but still no subject. If attached to the first, it gives us a verb
> where grammatically we expect to see a noun. But without points, we have
> other options. If both are nouns, we now have two simple, complete
> sentences, where each is the subject of its respective sentence. I read the
> first as a participle acting as a noun, the second as a shegolate noun.
> Thus
> the two sentences are:
>
>
> KN )RXWT KL BC(  כן ארחות כל בצע
>
> Such are the roads of all those taking a cut
>
>
> and:
>
>
> BC( )T NP$ B(LYW YQX  בצע את נפש בעליו יקח
>
> a cut takes the life of its master
>
>
> A couple of additional notes to clarify matters more: “cut” when it stands
> alone as in this context, is used in the same way as in English “a cut of
> the profits” or “gain” (e.g. Genesis 37:26) or “a cut of the loot” or
> “illegal gain” as in this and most other cases in Tanakh. Secondly, this is
> poetic, with KN with its implied “to be” and YQX acting as the parenthesis
> of the verse, with the subjects in the center with the added benefit for
> poetic use that they are from the same root. (A similar poetic mirroring is
> found in verses 26 & 27 of the same chapter.)
>
>
> A final translation, smoothed out in English with a bit a paraphrasing,
> could very well be, “Such are the roads of those who take a cut of the
> loot;
> unjust gain takes over the life of its owner.”
>
>
> Usually, the reading that makes the simplest sentences has the correct
> meaning, but not always.
>
>
> Reading the context, the verses surrounding the verse in question, gives
> the
> final say. The context of this verse shows that this is the final verse of
> a
> passage talking about people going out and illegally taking from others.
> The
> two verses immediately preceding this verse indicates that such actions end
> up giving problems to the actors. Again, it fits.
>
>
> After doing all these steps, you may find that the points were correct all
> along and usually that’s the case, making the first step unnecessary, but
> we
> can’t assume that.
>
> Another example is Isaiah 30:14 which I brought up in a few messages,
> starting at:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-October/034176.html
>
> It turns out that apparently I am the only one on this list who has done
> any
> metal smithing (I’ve done both black smithing and copper smithing) so I
> ended up bringing in personal experience as well as disregarding the
> points.
>
> There are probably several other verses as well, but here are two to start
> out with.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A special message to Karl Randolph.
> >
> > Dear Karl,
> >
> > often you claim that you disagree -not always, of course-  with the
> > masoretic pointing of the Tanakh and you say that you usually read the
> > biblical text in its unpointed version.
> >
> > I think you may be right but I think also it would be good for the list
> if
> > you give us two or three samples of this.
> >
> > Would you be so kind to do so and clearly show how the different pointing
> > conveys a meaning of the text that is different  -either a little or very
> > different-  of the traditional meaning shown in most versions into today
> > languages?
> >
> > Pere Porta
> > (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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)