Let me restate what I think I'm hearing:_____________________
)UM.IYM means "peoples"
L: means "to" or "for"
L:)UM.IYM means "peoples"
But L:)UM.IYM does not mean L: plus )UM.IYM
That just doesn't make sence. Both )UM.IYM and L:)UM.IYM look
identical except the one has L: added and they both mean the same thing
"peoples" but yet they are not related????
I hope my confusion on this makes sence. Logic would dictate (at least
in my mind) they are are realted - look alike means the same.
Can I please recieve an explaination as to why - how despite looking
identical and meaning identical things that they are not related?
B"H
John Steven
"If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you
behave."
-Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 20/04/2007 00:10, Brak wrote:_______________________________________________
Sorry about the missing alephs. I thought I had typed them.I think that because Hebrew does not have prefixed nouns. That is,
I was wondering of the word )UM.IYM was related to the word "mother".
Now you state that L:)OM and I would assume you would also include
the words in question )UM.IYM and L:)UM.IYM is most likely not
related to )UM.IYM and )UM.FH
I was wondering why you think that. To my limited knowledge it would
appear that )UM.IYM was the basis for L:)UM.IYM and that in fact
L:)UM.IYM should be morphed as L:/)UM.IYM to mean "to people" or "for
people"? Or would it be some grammar thing in which the L: is doing
something to the word instead of adding "to"?
prefixes like L- can be attached to nouns to make prepositional
phrases, hence L- attached to )UM.IYM makes "to the people". But this
does not make a new noun with a modified meaning, as it would in Greek
or Latin, or to some extent in English e.g. "stander" > "bystander".
So the noun L:)UM.IYM, despite looking identical to L- plus )UM.IYM,
must be from a separate root. At least, that is standard Hebrew
grammar and lexicography. I would not say that exceptions are
impossible, but it would need high level expertise to argue the case
for this being one.
According to the notes in BHS at Psalm 44:15, "mlt Mss Edd" have the
Also, I checked in the Aleppo Codex and it has BAL:)UM.IYM so I am
wondering is the LC the only one with this variant.
Aleppo reading, which is explained as between 20 and 60 of the
manuscripts and editions consulted. This is to be distinguished from
"permlt Mss" meaning more than 60. The implication seems to be that
there is more than one manuscript or edition which does not agree with
Aleppo.
Peter
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.