Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Karl:

You could be correct, in all of your points.

but ..... i have some doubts.

As I mentioned in my response to Stephen's post, I see a difference between
a comic book usage of homonym; and a קדש book usage of homonym. I believe
the latter type book more inclined to employ a richer usage of the homonym
than the comic book.

This conclusion finds support in the ubiquitous nature of books today;
contrasted with the relatively rare occurrence of books in 1010 a.d. I just
don't see wasted or frivolous word play in the latter, given the scarcity
and value of such resources.
As for the dashes and dots surrounding the words, I tend to agree with you.
I don't see any of those markings on the dead sea scrolls or other ancient
inscriptions.

regards,

fred burlingame
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:06 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Fred:
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM, fred burlingame 
> <tensorpath AT gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Karl:
>>
>> …
>>
>> And so, imho, "na-hal" used to convey different meanings of "inheritance"
>> and "stream valley" in close proximity, connects those two meanings in more
>> than an incidental manner.
>>
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> If English were spelled phonetically, we would have three words spelled
> “tu” but which are presently spelled “to”, “too”, and “two”. Why not the
> same with Hebrew? And how many of the homographs (words spelled the same
> way) were not homonyms because they had different pronunciations?
>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> fred burlingame
>>
>
> As for the Masoretic points, I don’t use them, and haven’t for years. They
> are not canon, not original, represent a pronunciation tradition at a time a
> millennium after Hebrew ceased to be spoken as the primary language of a
> people, so I don’t have them on the screen when I read the text.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
>