Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>]

Jim:

There is something about your e-mail client that prevents the wrap so I will 
have to work with this just to read it.  I will do that but I have been very 
busy and am merely scanning my e-mail.  Give me a while to sort this out.

Jack

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, TX


From: JimStinehart AT aol.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 1:46 PM
To: jkilmon AT historian.net ; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Interior Yods and Vavs


[In case this might have gotten lost in cyberspace, here again is the 
proposed post that I sent in several days ago.] The Hebrew alphabet has no 
vowels.  In the defective spelling of the oldest Biblical Hebrew (prior to 
the 1st millennium BCE), it is likely that no vowel indicators were used 
either.  Most proper names in early parts of the Bible have no vowel 
indicators, having no interior yod or vav.  But there are some notable 
exceptions.  Is that of great significance? Consider first that in the 
beginning, before interior vavs or yods were added, it is likely that:  (1)  
Genesis 6: 3 had (LM, meaning “eternal”;  (2) Genesis 21: 33 had )L (LM, 
meaning “Lord Eternal” as a grand title for YHWH;  and (3) Genesis 14: 1 had 
MLK (LM as Chedorlaomer’s kingly title, whose meaning is uncertain, but 
possibly could have been “King Eternal”.  To 1st millennium BCE scribes, 
Genesis 14: 1 looked potentially blasphemous.  Why should Chedorlaomer, an 
enemy of Abraham and Lot, have a title, namely MLK (LM, that looked 
suspiciously like beloved YHWH’s grand epithet, )L (LM?   For the rational 
reason of ruling out that potential blasphemy (not randomly!), 1st millennium 
BCE scribes changed two of those three references under the pretense of 
updating defective spelling to full spelling.  (1)  Genesis 6: 3 was left as 
(LM, meaning “eternal”, not needing to be changed;  (2) an internal vav was 
added to Genesis 21: 33, making YHWH’s title )L (WLM, thereby 
confirming/re-confirming that the meaning was “Lord Eternal”;  and (3) most 
importantly, an internal yod was added to Genesis 14: 1, making 
Chedorlaomer’s title MLK (YLM, thereby neatly precluding a meaning of “King 
Eternal” [which was the whole point of adding an interior vav at Genesis 21: 
33 and adding an interior yod at Genesis 14: 1 in the first place].  
[Interestingly, the last word of Jeremiah 49: 36 reads (WLM, but this is 
often viewed as being a mistake for an intended (YLM.] The key points I am 
starting to make here are as follows. 1.  When 1st millennium BCE scribes put 
an interior vav or yod into a proper name in an old part of the Bible, in my 
opinion that was not done randomly, but rather had a rational, discernible 
purpose.  The clearest case was when post-exilic scribes thought that they 
were thereby deftly avoiding a potential blasphemy. 2.  We should examine the 
original version of these proper names, deleting the interior vavs and yods, 
to discover what the pre-exilic authors actually intended. 3.  Yet of equal 
importance (though this further point has not been illustrated on this thread 
yet), if an interior vav in a proper name in an old part of the Bible has no 
discernible purpose, then it likely was there from day #1, and may have 
absolutely nothing to do with updating defective spelling to full-spelling, 
in which case the interior vav/W may be a true ancient consonant for all 
purposes. The broader point is that if we closely examine every proper name 
in an old part of the Bible that has an interior vav or yod and ask why that 
is the case, we may be able to make great discoveries.  Here, the original 
version of Chedorlaomer’s kingly title [without the later-added interior 
yod], namely MLK (LM, is of great help in figuring out who King Chedorlaomer 
is historically, because the six-letter kingly title MLK (LM is historically 
attested (at Ugarit) in the Late Bronze Age. One important linguistic key to 
understanding the Patriarchal narratives is to focus on the interior vavs and 
yods in proper names in the text.  Jim StinehartEvanston, Illinois
>From randallbuth AT gmail.com  Fri Oct  1 01:21:10 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 78B624C063; Fri,  1 Oct 2010 01:21:10 -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-qw0-f49.google.com (mail-qw0-f49.google.com
        [209.85.216.49])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DAE24C02B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri,  1 Oct 2010 01:21:09 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by qwe4 with SMTP id 4so715322qwe.36
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:21:09 -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=OnSjMDbQaMGf9W7qB/i5eZ3nB6TxVUMQ2tzXOX93mtw=;
        b=iveSECX08odgYQ/CZpJIjzebuWitsgultHF9NWyq8TdBxwVQt4NE8CYQLbW2rd6miI
        beyw29wZI3Grkmuaze8eBLy9iXOt0PSfzulaFxvHbVi+FrqBJSgSHnhdncsJqJPDrBdO
        dO8etOqYXyQZHOiM/mvhYfGcCkpYVg42+HxhkDomainKey-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=LQXPtT50YgYPz6zW17mvHQ1Ss9W/YeLRfMHxZgW1ubGcq8HJqHp8bPjoFx80VCfl53
        t3BPSC6829NZUlmuQwlc0l0PlTlDrHQ48DhTTy6SK7rOwqlK668k+jTXe0fFaGQwj6YR
        B0TAMAcisn1zyTLGO+87NLtZyU+mtnvs0ZbD0MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.48.206 with SMTP id s14mr46215vcf.43.1285910468929; Thu,
        30 Sep 2010 22:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.162.77 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinK4pXVHHNjgMY=ppaskzhtNBAxzLKxid2z3Ohw AT mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi�Dc6gQeTAVNi24JUn-Gx71aJrJoi9bvF9joG AT mail.gmail.com>
        <AANLkTi=EgsORx4ff+KVanJ5LzkEqLUww7=EW2OWgyBsj AT mail.gmail.com>
        <AANLkTinTSQZgp4yQtipu-NHTnPn6PWxtDi3fsz2f10xP AT mail.gmail.com>
        <AANLkTin4K=VOCWS_3r7XYvfvgwyKhLFeb15yy+A9xO2S AT mail.gmail.com>
        <AANLkTinW3iFcgv7SHiMu54K38YP7c4BUvCrMT-VXFjN9 AT mail.gmail.com>
        <AANLkTikHLGvNLLBid1+_fJnBXkH7_31wtU+VNWbpRBaU AT mail.gmail.com>
        <AANLkTim=OyW9hd23SjyH81wcN8FNmqprgofx-4xnFabE AT mail.gmail.com>
        <AANLkTinK4pXVHHNjgMY=ppaskzhtNBAxzLKxid2z3Ohw AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:21:08 +0300
Message-ID: <AANLkTinpU=_2eqvu=JHWiQyYjsaEp9vLQV+buVhz+LkL AT mail.gmail.com>
From: Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] NGD neged *nagad
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: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 05:21:10 -0000

>> With the common collocation with 'eyes', perhaps 'in front of'.
>
> ... therefore the common collocation is wrong.

This makes no sense. A "collocation" exists, it is not right or wrong.
neged often occurs in conjunction with 'eyes'. Period.

>> Yes, etymological proposals must be weighed for plausibility. However,
>> proposing an etymology, whether accepted of not, is not the
>> 'etymological fallacy'.
>
> The insistence that similarly spelled words indicate etymology is a fallacy.
> This is what you were doing.

Please respond to the point. There was no insistence. Etymologies are
proposals with probabilities, reasonable or far-fetched. Do you deny that
p.n.y. "to turn' and l+p.n.y. "before" or panim 'face(s)' are related? Is it
reasonable that 'turning' and 'face' could be related in a language when the
consonants fit? Likewise, b.l.y. 'to wear out' and b.l.y. 'without' have
consonants and an overlapping semantics of 'not having something'.
Reasonably related? Yes. An 'overlook' (noun) in English is a place
for looking at scenery. 'To overlook something' (verb) in English means
'to not see something'. Related? Probably so, despite rather opposite
meanings. With Hebrew we get things like le-hitqaddesh 'to sanctify
onself' and qedesha 'cult prositute'. Reasonably related.
On the other hand, defining a word based on its projected 'root' meaning
is a fallacy in every language, and improper lexicography.

...
>> >>>> Ecc 4.12
>> >>>>: אם־יתקפו האחד השנים יעמדו נגדו
>> >>>> if someone overpower/attack him, the one,
>> >>>> the two will stand against/resist him.
>> >>>
>> >>> If the one makes himself go around in circles, the second will make
>> >>> him
>> >>> stand in his presence.
>> >>
>> >> taqaf תקף 'overpower, be strong against' is a word with a root that
>> >> refers
>> >> to 'strength' and 'validity', not 'going in circles'.
>> >
>> > This is a hithpael of NQP נקף. In other words, the idea of running
>> > around
>> > like a chicken with its head cut off.
>>
>> there are problems with this proposal.
>>
>> 1. A hitpa``el normally has some preposition other than a 'direct object'
>> for any adjunct added to a verb. (There are a few that use a 'direct
>> object'
>> where the meaning has a more comples transitivity.)
>> Here, if a singular is read there is a suffix to the verb; if a plural is
>> read
>> then ha-eHad is the object.
>
> Normally, but as you acknowledge, there are exceptions.

But the exceptions show special 'transitive' semantics like 'to acknowledge
(sins-transitive object) on one's own behalf.' 'to confess (sins)'.
'to go in circles' does not qualify for consideration as one of the rare
exceptions.
So not only does this point call the proposal into serious question, but
in conjunction with the following it removes it from consideration.


>> 2. A minor problem is the fact/probability that n.q.p. is not attested as
>> a hitpa``el. A person may always propose such a verb, but some
>> doubt will attach to the proposal because of a lack of parallel.
>
> How do you know that this is not the example where it is so attested?

Because of the other two points. This point then becomes added
confirmation by fitting into a known pattern. Again, this is a matter of
judgement. One must make reasonable judgement calls versus poor
and bad judgement calls.


>> 3. Most importantly, the morphology cannot support the proposal. A
>> hitpa``el would have been spelled y.t.n.q.p.w. יתנקפו. the nun does
>> not drop or get absorbed in the pi``el and hitpa``el forms. Without
>> a nun in the consonantal text you would be required to amend the
>> text and would be doing so arbitrarily, and after already showing a
>> lack of control of the language.
>
> This is a more substantive argument.

Actually, decisive.
And all three points work together and strengthen each other. Ecc 4.9-12.
How strong? Let us say that each point had a .9 probability of being
correct. That would mean that the n.q.p. (hitpa``el) proposal would
have had a 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 probability of being correct, 0.001. But of
course, it is much worse. As mentioned in point 1, the semantics don't
fit and the probability is less than 0.1 anyway. And point 3 has a 0.00000
probability. The result is less than Jim Carrey's response to the girl in
'Dumb and Dumber'. She said that the chances of being attracted to him
were "one in a million". Jim's character replied, "So I have a chance!"
The audience was expected to laugh at the bad judgement.

At this point it would have been proper to admit a basic mistake.
but you don't seem to do that when it reflects on the control of BH.
We've been here before.

braxot le-shabbat shalom

Yochanan

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