Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kolinsky <yishalom AT sbcglobal.net>]

Pere, 
Of course this proposal will be rejected by most on this list, but here is 
what I think.  In Biblical Hebrew times, marriage was more a contract between 
the father of the bride and her proposed husband.  The word for sealing a 
contract is ChaTaM and I suggest that the word ChaTaN evolved from that.  
Regards,
David KolinskyMonterey, CA


Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 07:06:06 +0100
From: Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
To: jimstinehart AT aol.com
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Any reason?
Message-ID:
    <AANLkTi=r_uk1_PrLdrvmWgE6a-9tLK7vPO-M1RfXkw1G AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi, list.

We have in Ex 18:1 noun XOT"N, father-in-law.
We have in 1Sa 18:18 XFTFN, son-in-law or daughter's husband.

It seems clear that both nouns are related: their consonants are the same
and appear in the same order....

I'm wondering whether there is a good reason for this:

Pattern of XOT"N is that of Qal Participle while pattern of XFTFN is that of
many Hebrew nouns (such as DFBFR, word (Gn 18:14) or ZFKFR, male in Gn
1:27).

Would the reverse equally have been possible?

Namely, that XOT"N would mean daughter's husband and XFTFN would mean
father-in-law...

Is there any reason for things having gone the way they have gone and not
the reverse way?

Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)