Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Stephen Salisbury <wtsssalisbury AT yahoo.com>]

B-Hebrew Readers -

So far we have Pere Porta saying that <HIN:NIY> is to be understood as <HIN> 
+ <NIY>, but George Athas thinks it is <HI> <Ne> <NIY> (where <e> is the 
vocal Shewa).
How do native speakers of modern Hebrew pronounce <HIN:NIY> or <HAL:LW.-YFH.> 
when they read the Tanakh out loud?

(Maybe the common people say it one way and a formal / official reader would 
do it another...)


Thanks,
Stephen K. Salisbury
Research Fellow
The J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research
near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA



________________________________
From: Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
To: Stephen Salisbury <wtsssalisbury AT yahoo.com>
Cc: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Is the first syllable of <HIN:NIY> open or closed?


Stephen,
 
I think that the loss of the dagesh forte does not imply the change of the 
nature of the previous syllable. 
Thus, if in HIN.NIY (1Sa 3:5) HIN is closed, the same applies to HIN."NI (1Sa 
3:4 or Gn 22:1)...
 
And so: 
1Sa 3:4...........  HIN."NIY = HIN + N" + NIY
1Sa 3:5 ............  HIN:NIY = HIN + NIY
 
Both syllables HIN are closed. This is what I think. 
 
Remark that these words are but variants of the same thing: that with tsere 
is used for pause and that without tsere is used for dynamic (= non-pause).
 
Friendly,
 
Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Northeastern Spain)


 
2011/10/27 Stephen Salisbury <wtsssalisbury AT yahoo.com>

Fellow B-Hebrewers -
>
>C. L. Seow's grammar says on page 100 that <HIN:NIY> is derived from 
><HIN.:NIY> (which does occur in Gen. 22:1 & 22:11 and another dozen and 
>something times) by loss of the Dagesh Forte (which, according to Seow, is 
>common in the consonants <W>, <Y>, <L>, <M>, <N>, <Q>, <S>, <C>, <&>, and 
><$> with a Dagesh Forte in them and a Shewa underneath.)
>
>
>My question is this: After the loss of that Dagesh Forte is that Shewa 
>silent (closed first syllable) or vocal (open syllable)?
>
>
>In discussing the loss of the strong Dagesh (p. 59), Seow gives the examples 
><HAY:)OR>  where I assume the first syllable is closed, and <HA/M:RAG.:LIYM> 
>where I likewise assume the first syllable is closed.  But are they?  Or are 
>they anomalies similar to the plural <B.ATOWT>, which has an open first 
>syllable despite the short vowel Patah?
>
>
>The same question applies to <*HAL.:LW.-YFH.> becoming <HAL:LW.-YFH.> in the 
>Masoretic Text.
>
>
>Best Wishes,
>Stephen K. Salisbury
>Research Fellow
>The J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research
>_______________________________________________
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>


-- 
Pere Porta
>From andronicusmy AT gmail.com  Fri Oct 28 13:01:16 2011
Return-Path: <andronicusmy AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 20217)
        id 493DCE8BAC; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:01:16 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on 
mailman1.ibiblio.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
        DKIM_VERIFIED, HTML_MESSAGE,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.2.5
Received: from mail-qy0-f177.google.com (mail-qy0-f177.google.com
        [209.85.216.177])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E5D7E8B4A
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:01:15 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so4552417qyk.15
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:01:15 -0700 
(PDT)
Received: by 10.229.63.65 with SMTP id a1mr910904qci.174.1319821275153; Fri,
        28 Oct 2011 10:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.99.75 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
<CAN1YudcG-Y07hxY72sMC4cSnC3_sq26b=yC-o8uCYC790Tfgpw AT mail.gmail.com>
References: 
<CAN1Yudfoy1xo6FPhraR8ZFvwfqfTUpO71Q-FuRXsdtYaL=tDrQ AT mail.gmail.com>
        <CAEjy-11OcQQKCOKshqKSaZYaF_=oDpe1xoQjfOtAnJT+AA779A AT mail.gmail.com>
        <CAN1YudcFJ3xw9GyaYvzoxyL5ogf+XkusP4VyuJtEzcx+_KaUzw AT mail.gmail.com>
        <CAAEjU0u4qjBiD_VujXoO38uPD5Ux=PBfrmQQfr8y31dryMO9cQ AT mail.gmail.com>
        <CAN1YudeJehp0-6n_40V=TgkqdoQO2WjXBUmmNUNkKeY9j=Z-Ow AT mail.gmail.com>
        <CAEjy-11TUVz2BKuang0YQjG7a5pnH+u6bYSeN9-i4Drh500z6g AT mail.gmail.com>
        <CAN1YudcG-Y07hxY72sMC4cSnC3_sq26b=yC-o8uCYC790Tfgpw AT mail.gmail.com>
From: Andronic Khandjani <andronicusmy AT gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:00:54 +0300
Message-ID: 
<CAN1YudcPeAWd2RVMsaegfwXxr5eMMdRaJ-xKnAG3SsJe761tNA AT mail.gmail.com>
To: Uzi Silber <uzisilber AT gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] k'ehad mimenou
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:01:16 -0000

I still waiting some suggestions about the translation of this verse.

2011/10/28 Andronic Khandjani <andronicusmy AT gmail.com>

> Yes, we may not exclude this possibility but I think that plural was a good
> way to express the complexity:"panim, behemot" .Maybe the word
> kbod referred at first to *ventripotent *and* *fat* *leaders or rich
> persons but this notion is evacuated in the Bible.
>
>
> 2011/10/28 Uzi Silber <uzisilber AT gmail.com>
>
>> yes, but still -- could it not all point an earlier, polytheistic
>> view? after all, Canaanites from whom we Jews may have emerged in part
>> were polytheists, as were in fact so many of our Israelite/Judahite
>> ancestors.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Andronic Khandjani
>> <andronicusmy AT gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Yes, but we are not to speak about theology here. The Bible is using the
>> > plural form Elohim for Nisrok, the Assyrian god. This is for me enough
>> to
>> > prove that Elohim as the persian Yezdan acts as singular too even with
>> >  plural form. We have the form Elohimo too confirming this point of
>> view.
>> >
>> > 2011/10/28 K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
>> >
>> >> Firouz:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Andronic Khandjani <
>> >> andronicusmy AT gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Uzi,
>> >>> Thanks.
>> >>> How you will render Elohim?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> “God” in this context.
>> >>
>> >> There are two reasons given for the plural of the noun, one theological
>> and
>> >> the other linguistic:
>> >> 1) the Christian view of Trinity, which has its roots in Tanakh.
>> >> 2) the plural of respect and honor, used also for human masters and
>> lords.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Why the governing verb is singular?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Because it is recognized that there is one God.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that we must consider Elohim as singular even HE speaks to
>> Angels.
>> >>> I
>> >>> would maintain the monotheism of the author.
>> >>>
>> >>> Firouz Khandjani
>> >>>
>> >>> Karl W. Randolph.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > b-hebrew mailing list
>> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>> >
>>
>
>