Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Bryant,

Sources discussing the Tetragram in Egypt:

M. Lauenberger. "Jhwhs Herkunft aus dem Süden 
Archäologische Befunde-biblische 
Ûberlieferungen-historiche Korrelasjonen," 
Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche 
Wissenschaft, 2010: 1-19.

Leclant, J. (1991). "Le "Tetragramme" à lepoque 
d´Aménophis III," in NearEastern Studies 
Dedicated to H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa on 
the occation of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. 
Wiesbaden, 215-219.

Giveon, R. (1971).  Les Bédouins Shosou des Documents Égyptiens. Leiden:Brill.

Sources discussing West Semitic glosses in the Amarna letters:

W. L. Moran. "Amarna Studies: collected Writings." 2003.

S. Izre´el. "Canaano-Akkadian" 1998.

A. F. Rainey. "Canaanite in the Amarna tablets: a 
linguistic analysis of the mixed dialect used by 
the scribes from Canaan." 1996.

I have not previously looked for information on 
the Internet regarding  the Tetragram in Egypt. 
Because you asked for links I searched the name 
"Soleb," and I found 
http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2010/s10010053.htm 
and several others. You can also search for 
"Soleb".


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



> Dear Rolf,
>
> You said:
>
> Regarding the Egyptian material I will
> add that the two occurrences of the name of God
> YHW(W) have been found in in Soleb in the reign
> of Amenhopis III (14th century B.C.E.) and one
> occurrence i Amarna West in the temple of Raamses
> II (13th century). The name is associated with
> nomads living in an area including the later land
> of Israel. As for the Amarna letters, to the
> Canaanite glosses we can add some West Semitic
> grammatical elements.  So, people speaking a West
> Semitic language definitely lived in the land of
> Canaan in the 14th century. And they even may
> have worshiped YHWH. And as you say, it is
> obvious that their language did not originate
> suddenly in that century.
>
> Bryant:
>
> Please send references to the above including links (if possible).
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 1:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?
>
> From randallbuth AT gmail.com  Sun Sep  5 08:24:57 2010
Return-Path: <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 4E7884C01D; Sun,  5 Sep 2010 08:24:57 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
        DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=disabled
        version=3.3.1
Received: from mail-vw0-f49.google.com (mail-vw0-f49.google.com
        [209.85.212.49])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BEA94C016
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun,  5 Sep 2010 08:24:54 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by vws11 with SMTP id 11so2836027vws.36
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 05:24:54 -0700 
(PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to
        :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
        :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=wfabGCmSnWRdop02zqWkMkxrEu5bCfA1xz2ZN6pbcNw=;
        b=CNDm5qqXUtG3Cb/mwuAF+KNsuhiTbs/lz8vC1kDuabpuNYPcdiqZkzcQRz3sLJGeo0
        J7L8/rewZiO7/9hUVAkhyrxA9+ZAgU25OqPJj/KlmTsxNTGn8RPyCauTwYL36hUwpyYR
        F+SFd2arUqdsaPZT+8oEbyrs2h097rbHeMPMwDomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; 
c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
        :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=IibK6WzIdx8vHAZRrcBr2WM/jKGnOgpoe4qOh09Eu6GZncTAIbnnMMJCBo/Sfi/ELD
        JOcsZ1EW8qQx5qPKwfnc2Pj2Yy7BuSI/DOmabXe6JQhqqCp5ob8M+jGkZ7ZE20ZyHi41
        ykRPPgXaN657d0nsogdyzCR+t8Ffl8Rb3IApgMIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.159.14 with SMTP id h14mr780534vcx.255.1283689494632; Sun,
        05 Sep 2010 05:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.172.200 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Sep 2010 05:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=aKUnr-VOtzo29Cup9XAe3CWETGo6=usXMjEmZ AT mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik4tfJ4BoKCb_XSonqVWz0O92Be0tSuKzYVniDz AT mail.gmail.com>
        <AANLkTinvW5MK0oL46Hg2de2fwVDXPgE+qaEzLkFURgcc AT mail.gmail.com>
        <AANLkTi=EOd8f2e--mxNQHyzUDsAP8C=LOopp1WTZcnqe AT mail.gmail.com>
        <AANLkTiìZ4ZqraBFf3Y_bm7E+04hBL+dh5-S5htxAZU AT mail.gmail.com>
        <AANLkTin-ZBdMm28BE_=wexXpCynJoUxBBsEunoUh=7Xr AT mail.gmail.com>
        <AANLkTi=aKUnr-VOtzo29Cup9XAe3CWETGo6=usXMjEmZ AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 15:24:54 +0300
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=VLN5b-OS7gB+-Y=NceAOGC2DEw2x4NXESuuEq AT mail.gmail.com>
From: Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
To: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Inflection or Synonym
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 12:24:57 -0000

> > The lack of yod is the expected form of a Hif`il imperative without
> > a suffix.
> But what about the many times that the medial yod is missing in narrative?

What about them?
The BH context was a conversation with a command.
It was illegitimate to contest my reading on the
grounds of 'no yod' since 'no yod' was the correct and best form
for that reading in the first place.

> > >> As mentioned, your starting point was off,
> > >> since the root would not be 'establish' but more like
> > >> 'be stable, positioned unwavering, be firm'.
> > >
> > > Where do you get that definition? That’s not the definition I find when
> > > making a descriptive definition based on looking up all its uses in
> > > Tanakh, using a concordance.
>
> You didn’t answer my question.

The definition came from reading BH, something so obvious
as to not need explicit statement, especially since your statement
of that process had lead you to a mistake. So I proceeded to point
out the inadmissability of your result, to point out that your
conclusion on 'establish' was mistaken.
Please carefully note the following because it keeps coming up
on this thread.
The definition of a "root" from a hif`il word must be extracted
into some pre-hif`il definition so that it can then
have hif`il applied to it.
The root cannot already have the causative definition
or else you would get a double causative 'to cause to cause ...'.
Your 'establish', if it is a "root meaning", would then produce a
hif`il with the general meaning 'to cause to establish'. That is what I
already said in the first place. This same faulty logic or faulty
application comes up below with le-haggid. It is irrelevant whether
you used a concordance, if you don't understand the legitimacy or
illegitimacy of your own result.

> > But how do you know and show that this "inflectional view" is not
> > the influence of 'first year pedagogy'

> Another thing, I look at words for the actions they refer to,

except that when higgid refers to communication you want to
pull apart its root 'to be opposite, in front of' and make it a
physical, positional description, presumably transitive (that is,
'to cause something to be in front').
Maybe another perspective will help you. Ask yourself what is
'caused to be in front' when higgid is used?
In other words, what is the object of the hif`il verb higgid?
Is it not the content of a communication?

[follow up on the issue follows after a few side issues]

> questions start with a prefixed (prefixed to the
> sentence or phrase that is a question) ה heh. So the sentence
> should have started with הלא

if you do not know or accept that yes/no questions can begin without
a he-, then that needs to be a different thread, though it's too late
to tell biblical writers like David and Job. And it is tangential to
derivational morphology and Hebrew.

> Then in your follow-up question, there are other errors: יהודית does not
> take a prefix, as in Isaiah 36:11, the same way ארמית in the same verse;

correct. yehudit does not need to take a prefix. I specified the means
in order to keep it separate from the object for you. By all means drop
the be- if you understand it. But this overlooks something that is
almost a first. We actually communicated ! This is something that
isn't happening in English, apparently, and didn't happen in previous
BH.

> כותבים is usually יכתב איש in Hebrew, making that question 
> איך תכתבו שאלות
> יהודית , e.g. Ruth 3:18.
Just when things were communicating, we get adiaphora. Why change to
2plural? Why bother changing the TAM when it communicated within
bounds ("usually" and "less-usually" would both be BH).

> I have been known not to catch everything, so can you give me Biblical
> examples of exclamations starting with הלא ?

Not in this thread. Again, this is a case of something that I assume is
already known. A given. If not, then it needs another thread since it is
irrelevant to higgid and hif`il.

> > >>  אם תחפץ אתן לך מלים כמו שֵם ופֹעַל. אם 
> > לא, אל תדבר על 'שם' או 'פעל'.
> > >
> > > This makes no sense in Biblical Hebrew.
...
> You are using words in ways never found in Biblical Hebrew.

'Name'/noun and 'Action'/verb were given to you as neologisms
should you wish to use them. The whole ancient world used these in
various languages when they started talking about their language, in
their language. Like Greek ονομα 'name; noun', also used in Latin as
nomen. It is a reasonable proposal that a timetransported BH speaker
would make that choice if speaking about their language. The later
Hebrew users also made that natural connection. And I added that if you
didn't want to use such 'natural' neologisms, then speak around them,
don't use them, talk about something else, in parallel or otherwise.

> You missed the point. מסביבותיהן would mean
> “out from that which is around them”,
> in other words, ‘out of context’

If I spoke Karlit I would say, 'you are relying on English' and missing
the BHebrew.

> when what you meant to say ‘in their context’.

I said that you should speak about something else "around them",
from outside of them, without using those words.
And we digress, besides failing to communicate.

> > > you mean Aramaic, the language spoken in Canaan when that
> > > prophesy was fulfilled? After all, there was a word at that time for
> > > Hebrew if Hebrew were meant.
> >
> > Your comment is too shallow and doesn't help.
> > After all, there was a word in Isaiah's time if Aramaic was meant,
> > aramit.
> > As for Hebrew, they were then using yehudit for the restricted
> > Southern-Kigdom-Hebrew. sefat Kena`an is better than yedudit.
>
> You have no evidence other than your presuppositions
> that שפת ×›× ×¢×Ÿ = Hebrew.

Another digression, ignoring that Isaiah had a good word for Aramaic
that he didn't use.

> Samaria having been deported and those who replaced Samaria did
> not speak Hebrew.

And we know this because they used a Hebrew Bible? Sort of a
non-sequitur.

> But this is a side issue.

Yes.

> Where is your evidence that the Northern Kingdom spoke a different Hebrew
> before they were deported?

Oh, inscriptions found in the Northern Kingdom like shat for shana, and
incongruities in the biblical text, and geographical probabilities, and 
stories
like Shibbolet 'rapids, whitewater'.

> > Please try to understand what you are arguing against. You still don't
> > seem to have understood 'my' position that from language use a hif`il
> > and a hof`al are the same word. Those truly are inflexional.
>
> So some of the binyanim are inflections, and some etymologies? Or are you
> saying that groups or pairs of inflections are etymologies? I don’t see the
> logic of your position. Previously, from the way you argued, I had the
> impression that you thought that all binyanim are etymologies.

If a 'binyan' is a lexicalization (that is, a 'word' in street English),
then pi``el and pu``al are only automatic transforms, inflexions,
of the same lexeme/word.
Same with hif`il. I've thought so for over three decades, reconfirmed
without contradiction in thousands of hours of BH reading.
So did the Arabs, who invented the description of "binyanim". But you
and I cannot talk about Arabic, so you need to understand what I have
been saying and have not been saying about BH.
In addition, etymology refers to the history of a word,
not the synchronic use of a word. le-haggid is not 'an etymology', but
it would have an etymology. But taking a synchronic use of a word
and re-defining it according to it history rather than its developed use is
called an 'etymological fallacy'. In any language.

> I don’t believe in Occam. I have seen too many examples in many areas that
> show the fallacy of that thought.

OK. Though you have now permitted yourself the luxury of creating
fictive, unrestrainable worlds, of creating and following unnecessary
conceptions of a language. And then declaring all others wrong
who do not follow your unnecessary conception.

> > do not multiply entities unless necessary. If unambiguous
> > cases are 100% hif`il/hof`al,
>
> This is already a change from your earlier position.

No, it clarifies it for you. I had thought that you understood that
pu``al and hof`al are not independent lexemes/words. Remember,
I "believe", tongue in cheek, in five basic binyanim.

> I contest that they are all hiphils and hophals.

Like I said, without Occam you can create fictive worlds.

> It is you who claims that different binyan are different meanings. I
> disagree with that.

No you don't disagree with that. ba 'came' and hebi' 'brought' have
different meanings and stipulate a different set of 'arguments'
(to use language from logic about the 'cases' of a predication).
What you disagree with, is my claim that a binyan is not always
predictable. Stated positively, you claim that a pi``el and hif`il is
always predictable from a root meaning. And you have overlooked
the fact that if your claim were true, then there could be no
historical development of the Hebrew verb-root system. BH verbs
would always have to mean whatever they meant when first formed.
You only seem to acknowledge that in other languages we can see
that 'causative verbs' sometimes re-lexicalize into meanings
that were not part of the original meaning.

> > higgid means 'to transfer information from one person to another.'
>
> That is still translation.

No, that is definition, using English. you want BHebrew?
לתת לאיש להבין דברים, לספר, ולדבר ולהודיע
English was not the problem.

> > 'etymology' is not something that one believes in, it is a description
> > of the history and development of a word.
>
> That is, if the word has a history of development. But if we are dealing
> with inflections, then there is no history, as inflections occur at the same
> time.

Again, your conception of BH becomes unrealistically static.
Apparently, your nouns like 'qedesha' and 'nagid' can have
etymological development from their root, but verbs can't.
You are arguing something that goes against everything that we
know about every other language and certainly something that would
be expected between a time gap as wide as Abraham and Jeremiah.
(Not to mention Zechariah and Yeshua, "if they even knew BH". )

> Even if you can prove that every use is within a semantic field of
> communication, that does not prove that the word itself refers to the action
> of communication—it could refer to a supporting action that helps with the
> communication.

Yes, it could have. Except that le-haggid is often used by itself. And it is
le-haggid that introduces the content, often without lemor 'saying',
like dabber 'to speak'. Like, Gn 3.11 mi higgid lexa ki
`erom atta? "Who told you that you were naked?" (Note that ki introduces
the content, something that you missed in one of your examples.)
Or Ju 14.6 w-lo higgid labyw ule-immo et asher `asa. Here
introduced with et-asher as the object of `asa. etc etc etc.

> And at least one example I gave appears not to be in a communication
> semantic field.

Hello? When I look over your list I can't find one. It would have
helped if you specified it. Since you didn't, I will need to. Then,
you will be able to say, that you meant a different one.
Whatever.
Maybe you referred to:
> This search has also caused me to revise slightly my understanding of
> the verb, to a more activist meaning, namely more of “to go
> before” more than “to be before”, and where there is an object, “to 
> set
> before”. ...
>
> Genesis 14:13 “a survivor came and went before Abram”

As mentioned above, this is a mistake concerning the nature
of a hif`il.
If le-haggid means 'to go before', then it does not mean
'to cause something to go before'. If it means 'to cause something
to go before', then it does not mean 'to go before'. This is basic
Hebrew that you probably already know with typical movement
verbs like le-habi' "to bring something" or le-ha`alot "to bring/take
something up" or le-haggish 'to place something nearby'.
The hif`il is used for transitive moving of objects, the related qal
is used for the basic, intransitive movement.
At Genesis 14:13 you have wayyagged "and he told [it] to
Abram ..." making perfect sense as a reading with an object. As
with all human communication, everything does not need to
always be explicit. The context is allowed to fill things in, as
desired. Here, the author wanted to explain a lengthy
background statement and left the content, the object, implicit until
the next verse. It is still a communication. You have not provided
an example with a 'non-communication' object. Not even close.

This illustrates a basic methodological problem. You want
to have the right to unnecessarily change the meaning of a
BH word, here you want to change le-haggid into an
intransitive synonym of 'to come'. You don't wince at its
lack of support, or contradiction of its hif`ilness,
or linguistic expectation from causatives in natural human
languages, or even from the history of interpretation.
(Apparently, no one in recorded history has taken such a view
of that simple, uncomplicated, very clear BH phrase
at Gn 14.13. If you're going to suggest something new, at least
clarify something murky rather than make the clear, murky.)

It needs to be pointed out that wayyagged in Gn 14.13 becomes
unresolvable in your language. You don't know whether it
meant 'came before' or 'told'. Such becomes "uncertain thinking"
in BH. And 'came before' is an illegitimate intransitive that doesn't
fit the rest of the 368 uses of le-haggid. You can raise a ruse
and accuse me of writing this in English, but it doesn't change
the BH:
le-haggid means 'to tell, communicate, report, speak to'.
It does not mean 'to come before'.
Not in BH, ever.

Now I need to go learn Swahili. Yes, this is a real aside.

braxot

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