Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] $KK

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] $KK
  • Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:19:46 -0700

Nir:

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br> wrote:
karl,

i personally see nothing in that sentence which indicates
that $KN="dwell" does not fit the context, or that
$KK="calm down" makes more sense.

The verb $KK = “to abate” as in flood waters going down Genesis 8:1 or the king’s wrath going down Esther 7:10, so here in Job 15:28 cut off cities going down into ruin.

Examples of Y$KWN from $KN are found in Judges 5:17 and Psalm 104:12.

moreover, if the root were $KK then i imagine the correct -WN
form would be Y$KKWN and not Y$KWN as written.

Look at Genesis 8:1. It’s fairly rare that an ayin doubled verb has a doubled consonant in Yiqtol conjugation. Yah it happens, but it’s fairly rare.
 
furthermore, it
will be NECESSARILY third plural, which i suspect is not what
you had in mind.

Yeah, third plural. 

>>> If it adds nothing to the meaning, then why do we find verses where there
is a mixture—a verb with a “paragogic” nun and in the same verse a verb
without? E.g. Genesis 3:3, Exodus 3:21, etc.?

the -WN ending, within a canaanite context, has been debated by
many researchers, including moran, niccacci, shulman, gentry, but without
a clear conclusion. most opinions corroborate george's suggestions
(obsolete form, volitive/subjunctive) and agree that the suffix
indeed does not change the general meaning of the word. it
may have had a minor grammatical or phonetical purpose which has
escaped us today. i also agree with pere's
observation that it mostly appears in KAL.

That’s what I suspect, that it has a subtle shift in emphasis rather than a major change in meaning, a shift so subtle that it often doesn’t show up in translation. 

let me add that paragogic -WN is most frequently the last word of a verse
or a clause, and so usually not followed by a (grammatical) object.
this may indicate that one of its roles may have been in
creating a stress shift GOING BOTH WAYS and indicating END OF A CLAUSE.
for example, in the verse you provided, ex 3:21, TLKW (milra) was changed
to TLKWN (milel, as astutely dotted by masorah) at the end of a clause.
the same observation is also consistent with gen 1-4 TMWTW (milel)
changes to TMTWN (milra) at the end of the verse.

It frequently is followed by a (grammatical) object, e.g. Genesis 18:28–32, 32:20, 43:32, etc. In fact, it seems that that’s the more common way it’s used in Biblical Hebrew. I don’t know about cognate languages. 

in other places like gen 43:32 the subjunctive/volitive element
seems more appropriate.

nir cohen

Karl W. Randolph. 



  • [b-hebrew] $KK, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat., 10/29/2012
    • Re: [b-hebrew] $KK, K Randolph, 10/30/2012

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page