Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Pere:

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:

> My proposal, Karl, points only  --at least in a first step--  to nouns
> ending in -WT  (read: -oot in the English system) and within the boundaries
> of, so to say, basic nouns as those I brought in my mail.
>

Oh, I see, this is not a question about Biblical Hebrew, as it is expressed
in Tanakh.

>
> We could deal, for instance, with the following issues:
>
> 1. Why some have shewa in the first syllable while others have qamats.
>

You’ll have to ask the Masoretes, and study the dialect of a thousand years
after Biblical Hebrew ceased to be the first language of the people. The
same with your other questions.


> 2. How they form their plural abolute.
> 3. Those with qamats, do they keep this qamats in the declension?
> 4. Which meaning they developed starting from the basic meaning of the
> stem.
> 5. Why some stems gave a noun in -WT while other stems of the same type did
> not.
>
> And so on.
>
> This could become a discussion that could be of interest for many -or at
> least a relevant part-   of the members of this list, methinks.
>

You may be right that it is of interest to some on this list, but that means
that I’ll have to bow out of the discussion, as I am interested in Biblical
Hebrew for which even Masoretic Hebrew is a distraction.

I tried years ago to master the Mastoretic points, but gave up over a decade
ago when I realized that they are wrong as far as meaning is concerned often
enough as to be untrustworthy.

So with a friendly wave, I’ll have to bid adieu to this discussion.

>
> The threads we could debate are many.
> And, of course, if someone has other proposals, please, do not hesitate to
> bring them here.
>
> Indeed, debating on the Hebrew language and enlarging our knowledge of
> it, is the declared purpose of this beloved b-hebrew list.
>
> Friendly,
>
> Pere Porta
> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
>
> Karl W. Randolph.