Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

peter eyland's last comment is interesting. the greeks thought initially that
light comes from the eye to the object, then inverted. did the ancients indeed
believe the sky light is not due to the sun?

in both aramaic and hebrew $MYM / $MY) appear in plural form, as if derived
from the root $MM or $M). but in both languages it is also of the form $-water
(hebrew $-MYM, aramaic $-MY) with water also in plural (??). whether this
similarity is accidental or not, we dont know. the sky/atmosphere does 
contain water as an essential element. but one may view gen 1 as an attempt 
to come to terms with this linguistic similarity.

(strictly speaking, the hebrew form with NYQUD is the dual form, but the
biblical word could also mean the plural form.)

the arabic situation is somewhat similar: MY) for water and SM) and SM))
(sing/pl?) for sky. 

the common NWS form seems to be $M)=sky. but we may conjecture $M=air,
$WM=emptyness, $MYM=the great emptyness, $MMH=empty terrain (desert,
destruction), N$M=breath. in this case, the sky-water linguistic 
similarity would be merely accidental.

now is the most intriguing: $M$=sun. if we interpret $M$ as $MY-)$ or
sky-fire or fire-of-the-great-emptyness we may, opposite to peter's 
opinion, conclude that the ancients did associate the sky light with 
the sun. 

of course, this is conjectural, and also problematic since $M$ 
is sun also in babylonian, where sky (as far as i know) is AN and 
nor $M).

nir cohen