Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Others?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Others?
  • Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:59:08 -0400

It is possibly a mere formality, but present day grammarians [see:]

יצחק אבינרי: היכל המשקלים

consider $IXVAH [no dagesh], LI$KAH [dagesh], and NI$KAH [dagesh] as belonging to the same MI$QAL. Also HEMIAH, XEBRAH, etc., punctuated with a segol.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 25, 2011, at 12:28 AM, Pere Porta wrote:

Might we then say that, concerning the pointing pattern, noun LI $KAH, chamber (Neh13:5) (*) belongs to a different mishqal from that of noun $IKBAH, layer (**)?

Or should we rather say that they belong exactly to the same pointing pattern, only that for an unknown reason the B of $IKBAH lacks dagesh?


(*) Dagesh in the K
(**) NO dagesh in the B

Regards

Pere Porta

2011/5/25 Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
I am not sure how the present day $IKBAH, [$IXVAH] שכבה 'layer, stratum', came to be. In the bible (Ex. 16:13) it is found only in SMIYKUT as: $IKB-AT HA-TAL שִׁכְבַת הַטַּל 'lying dew', implying that the single is possibly $KABAH.
I don't think that the Imperative form $IKBAH of Gn 39:7 "became" the noun for the 'layer' of today.
The imperative $IKBAH, as well as the corresponding noun, lacks a dagesh in the B, and I, therefore, suspect it to be a latter form preferred by the NAQDANIYM.
All other nouns of the same MI$QAL have a dagesh, as expected, to wit: XEMDAH, XERPAH, KISBAH, LI$KAH, NIQPAH, NI$KAH, EMDAH, [PITDAH], PISGAH, PIRDAH, PI$TAH, RIKBAH, RICPAH.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On May 24, 2011, at 1:51 AM, Pere Porta wrote:

We have in Gn 39:7 an Imperative form, $IKBAH, lie down (you, male)! (an alternative to $:KAB found in 2Sa 13:5)
In today Hebrew we find the common noun $IKBAH, layer, social stratum.

Apparently, an old Imperative form has become a feminine common noun today.

I'm looking for other analogous cases: do you know of some others?

Regards

--
Pere Porta

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>




--
Pere Porta






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page