Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

Uri,
why do you say that the term "construct" has nothing to do here?
Whenever we add a personal suffix to a noun in its plural form, we add the
suffix to its construct, not to its absolute form, do we not?

Hearty,

Pere Porta

2010/12/21 Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>

>
>   Dear Pere,
>
>   Whoever wrote (ACFTFYIK in  Is 47:13 simply made a mistake.
>
>   Another remote possibility is that the word, the way it is preserved, is
> a corruption of another earlier one, now lost.
>
>   As you know, at a certain point in time not only the consonantal text,
> but also the vocalization, cantillation and punctuation marks which were
> added to it centuries later - all became part of a holy canon, not to be
> tempered with.
>
>  Many such 'abnormalities' were noted, and marked in the text but not
> changed.
>
>  BTW, the term "(construct)" which you added has nothing to do with
> declension in this case.
>
>  Best,
>
>  Uri Hurwitz                           Great Neck, NY
>
> Pere Porta asked:
> In Is 47:13 we find noun (ACFTFYIK, your counsels (of a female).
> I do not understand why and how the plural (construct) of noun ("CFH,
> counsel (Pr 21:30) takes a qamats in letter tsade and not a holam.
>
> Is this something usual (in the Bible) for this noun type? Is it an
> anomalous behaviour?
>
> And if this is a quite anomalous behaviour.... how can we distingish the
> normal from the anomalous?
>
> Pere Porta
> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Previous message: [b-hebrew] Pr 21:30 - ("CFH
> Next message: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 96, Issue 22
> Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>



-- 
Pere Porta