Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

isaac,

i gave you many examples of suffixes. in your answer you only object to one 
of them, YE$U(ATAH. so, i take it you
accept the general picture i describe...

now, to the point: you are correct about YE$U(ATAh and i retract my words: it 
is not a T-suffix. but it is a suffix nonetheless!

more precisely, it is an H-suffix (added to the SMIXUT-form YE$UAT). it isthe 
same construction as UT$UVATO HARAMATAH (2Sam??), 
where the use is justified as directive. the same smixut+H occurs whenever 
the original word ends with an H by itself, 
so as to avoid two consecutive H. HAGIV(ATAH, HABIQ(ATAH, HAQIRYATAH etc.

so, the construction is a known construction in BH. in Ps 3:3 i believe the 
same form was used out ofcontext (i.e. not as a
directive), just for poetic reasons.

-------------------------------------

XALCAH: the volitive H-ending in BH, whatever you call it, is factually an 
H-suffix. the rest is either speculation 
or phantasy (see below for the difference). some scholars (following, i 
think, rainey and moran, based on amarna letters) 
think that this is a descendant of the canaanite QATALA form, also used as 
volitive, which preserves the same final -A. 
but they at least base their theory on some evidence.  this does not 
NECESSARILY contradict your explanation, but would push
it at least one thousand years backwards. this is relevant to the rest of my 
answer below.

-------------------------

let us once and for all end this running-around-the-bush on your "theory of 
suffixes". 
there is a limit to what one can take as legitimate argument. we are not here 
to build palaces 
in the sand but to find some sense in an old script.

i really support your theory that at some extremely remote moment in the 
formation of early BH, or beyond, 
all the affixes and suffixes had personal pronouns as their origin.

i think most of us in b-hebrew share the same conviction. we see similar 
constructions in practically every language in 
the world, including english.of course, it is mere speculation, because it 
has no evidence in history. at best, it goes back to
pre-historic times, i.e. before the written word. maybe not in english, 
certainly in hebrew.

so, the question is when one leaves speculation and enters phantasy.

------------------------------------------------

here is when it becomes phantasy: when the same equation (suffix=pronoun) is 
taken out of context and time.

it is certainly a gross anachronism to continue using the same primitivity 
argument indefinitely after the language had 
been given its more or less developed form, which is what you insist of 
doing. things got a long way off; for example, 
nobody would nowadays (not even in isaiah's time) associate HALKAH with H.L.K 
+ HI), HALKU with H.L.K + HEM, HALAK
with H.L.K. + HU). the suffix became very different from the pronoun (or vice 
versa)!

nor would isaiah have had any way of associating YE$U(ATAH with YW$UAH + ATAH.

things changed! nobody knows anymore your magic formula ... but you go on 
using it!!!

this is what i call phantasy.

--------------------------------

also, at this particular phrase, with all due respect, the pronoun ATAH is 
also completely out of text:

                                                 רַבִּים, אֹמְרִים 
לְנַפְשִׁי:    אֵין יְשׁוּעָתָה לּוֹ בֵאלֹהִים סֶלָה.

should we translate it as:

                Many there are that say of my soul:    "There is no salvation 
you for him in God"?????

i call this gibberish. also observe that soul NEFE$ is feminine, so ATAHmakes 
no sense. but even assuming YE$U(ATAH = YE$U(AH + AT,
it is equally gibberish to me.

nir cohen

  On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:00:48 -0500, Isaac Fried wrote
> 1. I don't know if Y$UATAH ישועתה of Ps. 3:3 is an older form, a "poetic" 
> form, or merely a alternate grammatical form that was in use somewhere 
> among the Israelites. What I am convinced of is that it is not a mere 
> T-suffix", but rather the personal pronoun ATAH אתה referring to salvation 
> itself. Otherwise, it is the shorter Y$UAH ישועה ending in HI היא
> 
> 2. In Ps. 6:5 we find the "irregular" form XALCAH חלצה '(please) 
> extricate', instead of the "regular" piel form XALEC חַלֵּץ In this 
> construction, the internal personal pronoun E for the actor is placed at 
> the end as AH היא
> 
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
> 
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:job 5:16 
> (AWLAH-->(OLATAH: a T-suffix possibly returning to an older form. see Ps 
> 3:3. 

-- 
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:00:48 -0500, Isaac Fried wrote
> 1. I don't know if Y$UATAH ישועתה of Ps. 3:3 is an older form, a "poetic" 
> form, or merely a alternate grammatical form that was in use somewhere 
> among the Israelites. What I am convinced of is that it is not a mere 
> T-suffix", but rather the personal pronoun ATAH אתה referring to salvation 
> itself. Otherwise, it is the shorter Y$UAH ישועה ending in HI היא
> 
> 2. In Ps. 6:5 we find the "irregular" form XALCAH חלצה '(please) 
> extricate', instead of the "regular" piel form XALEC חַלֵּץ In this 
> construction, the internal personal pronoun E for the actor is placed at 
> the end as AH היא
> 
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
> 
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:job 5:16 
> (AWLAH-->(OLATAH: a T-suffix possibly returning to an older form. see Ps 
> 3:3. 

-- 
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)