Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Heber's Wife Jael: "Male Ibex"?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: randallbuth AT gmail.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Heber's Wife Jael: "Male Ibex"?
  • Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:07:43 -0400 (EDT)


Randall Buth:

You wrote: “[G]oats are feminine. Check out עזים. Gen 15.9. In this
case יעל is a female ya`el.”

Based on the lexicons I have consulted:

1. Y(L = “male ibex” [masculine singular]
2. Y(LH = “female ibex” [feminine singular]
3. Y(LT = “of a female ibex” [feminine singular construct]
4. Y(LYM = “male ibexes” [masculine plural] -- though perhaps this could
also mean “female ibexes” as well
5. Y(LY = “of male ibexes” [masculine plural construct]

I see the potential ambiguity in the plural form. But I myself see no
ambiguity whatsoever in the singular forms. Y(L is a “male ibex”, whereas by
contrast, in order to signify a “female ibex” [in the singular], one must
add the female suffix -H. Are the lexicons wrong about Y(LH being “female
ibex
”?

The only reference to a female ibex in the Bible is at Proverbs 5: 19,
where the form is feminine singular construct, that is, Y(LT: “[Let her be
as]
the loving hind and pleasant roe [Y(LT, construct form of “female ibex”];
let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with
her love.”

To me, that means that as long as the singular form is in focus, for a “
female ibex” it’s Y(LH in normal form, and Y(LT in construct, and cannot be
Y(L, which instead would mean a “male ibex” as my original post asserted.

To quote Gesenius: “Y(LH fem. of the preced. [which was Y(L] 1. a wild
she-goat, the female ibex.” HALOT has Y(LH as a female ibex. BDB is the
same. Are all the standard lexicons wrong about this virgin pure west
Semitic
common word?

At Genesis 15: 9 which you reference, I see (Z, which means “a she-goat”,
being feminine singular. Yes, “she-goats” plural, though not present at
Genesis 15: 9, would be (ZYM. But what does that have to do with female ibex
in the singular? I concede that in plural forms, one may see -YM. That
apparently is your point. But since we see Y(LT at Proverbs 5: 19 as a
distinctive feminine form in the singular, I myself don’t see a confusion of
gender
when we are dealing with singular form [as opposed to plural].

Are you saying that Biblical Hebrew had the same word for “male ibex” and “
female ibex”, with both being Y(L, and with there being no feminine form
Y(LH? That contradicts every lexicon I have consulted.

We see Y(LYM as meaning “male ibexes” or “male mountain goats” as
masculine plural at I Samuel 24: 2 and Psalms 104: 18. We see “of male
ibexes” in
masculine plural construct Y(LY at Job 39: 1.

What support is there for your view that “In this case יעל is a female
ya`el”? Every source I consult says that on the contrary Y(LH, with a -H
feminine ending, would be “female ibex”. Thus I conclude that the name of
Heber
’s wife, Y(L, would mean “male ibex”, if it were a west Semitic name
[which, in my opinion, it isn’t]. My point is that it would not make sense
for a
woman, especially a woman whom the Bible views positively, as having a west
Semitic name that means “male ibex”. Nothing about Heber’s wife fits a
meaning of “male ibex”: she’s a woman, not a male, and she doesn’t act a
bit like an ibex in any event. Shouldn’t we instead ask if Y(L here is a
non-Semitic name with an appropriate meaning, either a-al-la: ‘lady, queen’,
or
e-e-li: ‘sister’?

Is there any printed source that supports your view [if I am understanding
your view correctly] that Y(LH does not exist in Hebrew [contra all the
standard lexicons as to this west Semitic common word], and that “female
ibex”
would be rendered Y(L? I see Y(L as a west Semitic common word or as a west
Semitic name as meaning “male ibex”, and as such not fitting Heber’s wife
at all.

Jim Stinehart




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page