Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Ex 6:6 hiphil imperative 'bring' (K Randolph)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>
  • To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ex 6:6 hiphil imperative 'bring' (K Randolph)
  • Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 02:39:51 -0600

Hi Ruth,

 

Again, your contributions are always welcome.  Two things in response.

 

(1) I think you have put in good perspective just how reliable the Masoretic pointing really is.  When Karl talks about the pointing being possibly 99% accurate, but then goes on to say the that he doesn't trust the pointing, it just sounds plain silly.  I would love to have a doctor who got 99% in all his courses at medical school.  I would love to have the lawyer who won 99% of his cases.  And I would hate to have entire classes of students who always got 99% on their tests, because then my Dean would call me on the carpet for giving out too many "A"s.  Besides this, I believe the Masoretic is much more reliable than 99%.   There are certainly mistakes from time to time; but usually contextual factors will serve to call attention to them.  For the most part, a good rule of thumb is that the Masoretic pointing is right until proven wrong.

 

(2) I actually did much of the same research you did with regard to "strike" in baseball.  The problem with these websites is that they are indeed websites, and the ones who run the pages are not always accurate with their information.  So some of them will give varying information as to how "strike" came to mean "miss."  Another site that has even more complete information and gives a very full account is this one:

 

http://www.19cbaseball.com/rules-7.html

 

But what is important to note is that absolutely none of these sites suggest that "strike," meaning to miss, came from a different root than "strike" meaning to hit.  Note my last email to Karl where I call attention to the fact that batters were first called "strikers."  So, the chances of Karl's theory that "strike" in baseball, meaning to miss, comes from a different root than "strike" in baseball, meaning to hit, has about as good a chance of being true as a snowball's chance in Hades.  It only comes up because of his insistence on his "single unique meaning" theory of lexemes.

 

So I concur with your wish for this one to be put to rest.

 

Requiescat in pace!

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry


Jerry Shepherd
Taylor Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta
 





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page