Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

The following is what I was looking for all along in this discussion.

I was playing devil’s advocate because I wanted to make sure that the way I
had been reading the text is correct after all. I hadn’t questioned it until
Pere brought it up, and then I decided to push it to see how far it would
go. I figure that an argument that can withstand a devil’s advocacy counter
argument is a lot stronger than one that is merely believed because it is
taught in first year Hebrew or expounded by some “expert”.

Is the list below exhaustive, or just representative?

You have been wrong often enough that I cannot trust just your say so,
that’s why I insist on getting specific examples in Tanakh to back up your
claims. It’s also why I list chapter and verse when I bring up questions. I
wasn’t sure how to go about either verifying or falsifying my devil’s
advocacy, and your list of verses gave me the clues I needed. Thanks.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> shalom Nir,
> katavta:
>
> > whether this T-dagesh construction is general in the tanakh or
> not, i cannot say as i have no access to heavy machinery. but one
> should look for roots like
>    $T, NXT, (hifil: HYNXYT), KRT, (hifil: HYKhRYT), KFT,
>    KTT, (piel: KYTET), $TT, STT, (WT (hiil)
> that end with T, in past tense, before
>    -TY (first person) or -TA/T (secnd sing) or -TEM/TEN (second plural)
> and see whether the dagesh always appears and one T is dropped.
> i think the answer is yes, and then euphony would be the only plausible
> reason.>
>
>
> You are basically correct, and checking this out is what anyone disputing
> this
> should have done along time ago.
>
> Here are the references where a verb is found with a root
> ending in 't' and with a suffix beginning with 't'. In all cases,
> where the two 't' would come into phonetic juxtaposition,
> only ONE taw is written. This does not make for interesting
> reading. But it documents the data.
>
> Gen. 19:19‏, ‎Ex. 1:16‏, ‎Ex. 5:5‏, ‎Ex. 23:31‏, ‎Ex. 34:27‏, ‎Lev. 17:10‏,
> ‎Lev. 20:3‏, ‎Lev. 20:5‏, ‎Lev. 20:6‏, ‎Lev. 26:6‏, ‎Lev. 26:30‏ , ‎Num.
> 14:15‏, ‎Num. 17:6‏, ‎Num. 32:15‏, ‎Deut. 4:25‏, ‎Deut. 20:20‏, ‎Deut.
> 31:16
> ‏, ‎Josh. 23:4‏, ‎1Sam. 15:3‏, ‎1Sam. 17:35‏, ‎2Sam. 1:16‏, ‎2Sam.
> 13:28‏, ‎2Sam.
> 14:30‏, ‎1Kings 9:7‏, ‎1Kings 14:10‏, ‎1Kings 21:21‏, ‎2Kings 9:8‏, ‎2Kings
> 17:38‏, ‎Is. 9:3‏, ‎Is. 13:11‏, ‎Is. 14:20‏, ‎Is. 14:22‏, ‎Is. 14:30‏, ‎Is.
> 16:10‏, ‎Is. 21:2‏, ‎Jer. 7:34‏, ‎Jer. 11:10‏, ‎Jer. 17:27‏, ‎Jer.
> 21:14‏, ‎Jer.
> 31:31‏, ‎Jer. 31:32‏, ‎Jer. 32:40‏, ‎Jer. 34:13‏, ‎Jer. 43:12‏, ‎Jer.
> 48:33‏,
> ‎Jer. 48:35‏, ‎Jer. 49:27‏, ‎Jer. 49:37‏, ‎Jer. 50:32‏, ‎Jer. 51:20‏,
> ‎Ezek.
> 7:24‏, ‎Ezek. 12:23‏, ‎Ezek. 14:8‏, ‎Ezek. 14:13‏, ‎Ezek. 14:17‏, ‎Ezek.
> 16:41‏, ‎Ezek. 21:8‏, ‎Ezek. 21:9‏, ‎Ezek. 23:27‏, ‎Ezek. 23:48‏, ‎Ezek.
> 25:7‏, ‎Ezek. 25:13‏, ‎Ezek. 25:16‏, ‎Ezek. 26:13‏, ‎Ezek. 28:8‏, ‎Ezek.
> 28:17‏, ‎Ezek. 29:8‏, ‎Ezek. 30:10‏, ‎Ezek. 30:13‏, ‎Ezek. 30:15‏, ‎Ezek.
> 34:10‏, ‎Ezek. 34:25‏, ‎Ezek. 35:7‏, ‎Ezek. 37:26‏, ‎Hos. 1:4‏, ‎Hos. 2:5‏,
> ‎Hos. 2:13‏, ‎Hos. 2:20‏, ‎Hos. 9:16‏, ‎Amos 1:5‏, ‎Amos 1:8‏, ‎Amos 1:14‏,
> ‎Amos 2:3‏, ‎Obad. 10‏, ‎Mic. 5:9‏, ‎Mic. 5:10‏, ‎Mic. 5:11‏, ‎Mic.
> 5:12‏, ‎Nah.
> 2:14‏, ‎Zeph. 1:3‏, ‎Zeph. 1:4‏, ‎Zeph. 3:6‏, ‎Hag. 2:5‏, ‎Zech. 9:6‏,
> ‎Zech.
> 9:10‏, ‎Zech. 11:10‏, ‎Mal. 2:8‏, ‎Psa. 8:7‏, ‎Psa. 73:27‏, ‎Psa. 73:28‏,
> ‎Psa.
> 88:7‏, ‎Psa. 88:9‏, ‎Psa. 89:4‏, ‎Psa. 89:24‏, ‎Psa. 89:45‏, ‎Psa. 90:8‏,
> ‎Psa.
> 119:119‏, ‎Job 7:14‏, ‎Job 23:17‏, ‎Job 31:1‏, ‎Prov. 23:8‏, ‎Dan.
> 8:17‏, ‎2Chr.
> 7:18‏
> (Is 9.3 [root H.t.t.] fits this picture, too, because haHitt-o-ta has a
> separating vowel between the collapsed root letters that precede, and the
> suffix. Thus, the suffix cannot be joined to the previous 'taw', because of
> the vowel. The other two H.t.t. examples, Jer 49.37 and Job 7.14, show both
> root letters and the suffix joins the second root letter-taw, like all of
> the other examples above.)
>
> So the voice is unanimous.
> It's not often when things are that black and white in language.
>
> blessings
> Randall Buth
>
>