Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

Karl,
yes, we agree to desagree.
And let us go on to other threads.

Fiendly to you,

Pere Porta

2011/4/12 K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>

> Pere:
>
>  On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Karl,
>>
>> Sure, the correctness of a proposition is not a voting issue.
>>
>>  Karl, the fact that several words in the Bible have a wrong pointing  -I
>> do not deny this-   does not imply that wrongness is the general rule
>> concerning the masorete points.
>>
>
> I think that the Masoretic points as indicators of meaning are correct most
> of the time.
>
> If only 1% of the points are wrong, with an average of three points a word
> would mean one in 33 words is wrong, and assuming an average of 10 words a
> verse would make fewer than one verse in three could be read wrongly because
> of wrongly pointed words. I think that fewer than 1% of points are wrong as
> indicators of meaning.
>
> (I think most are wrong as far as recording Biblical era pronunciation, but
> that’s a different issue and irrelevant to this discussion.)
>
> However, of verses with which we have difficulties, such as this verse in
> Psalms, it seems that well over half can be read clearly if all we do is to
> change points.
>
>>
>> I sincerely think that you're completely mistaken at claiming that DKYT in
>> Ps 51:10 is an adjective.
>>
>>
> Then how do you explain the missing )$R that should be there if DKYT is a
> verb? But if it is an adjective, then )$R should not be there and it isn’t.
>
>>
>> Quite friendly,
>>
>> Pere Porta
>>
>
> It looks as if we have reached an impasse in this case: I point out that
> there is a pattern of where nouns, adjectives and adverbs are derived from
> roots by use of -YT suffix, point to grammar and syntax that indicates that
> this is an adjective, yet you prefer to go along with tradition (Masoretic
> points) which you admit is sometimes wrong. It also looks as if you go along
> with an argument of what should be according to theory, instead of what is
> observed when we read the text.
>
> So let’s agree to disagree, and go on to other cases.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
>
>>    2011/4/12 K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>> That nouns, adverbs and adjectives are derived from verbs by adding a -YT
>>> suffix leaves open the possibility that in this case, this is an example 
>>> of
>>> such a derivation. Therefore the lack of an )$R in this phrase is not an
>>> anomaly, but expected because of what words are used. That’s how I see it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Karl W. Randolph.
>>>
>>>
>


-- 
Pere Porta