Dear Peter,
The reason it's not reduced is that it bears the accent on the first syllable. ...
... Accordance parses it as construct.Don't expect me to believe this on the basis of an authority. Accordance (actually the WTS databse, I think) simply follows traditional interpretations in such cases where the actual form is ambiguous. But I accept James Price's argument that the accentuation suggests a construct form - at least, that that was probably the understanding of the Masoretes and of the pronunciation tradtion which they wrote down.
...
HH: This form does not reduce when it's construct elsewhere in the OT.
The only two other timesFor he has missed Psalm 31:8 which I think must be construct, also Psa 71:20, Prov 21:23, Isaiah 65:16. And I accept that the first qamats in CARAH does not seem to be reduced in any of its inflected forms where reduction would be expected, including singular constructs and before personal suffixes. So it seems that this noun has an irregular infectional paradigm, and the lack of reduction in Psalm 25:17 is not an argument that it is absolute - formally, apart from the argument from accents, it is ambiguous.
that this exact form ZaROTH is used in the Hebrew Bible (Job 5:19 and Psalm
71:20, see also Psalm 46:2; Deut. 31:17 & 21) the form is definitely NOT
construct.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.