According to your multi-faceted description below, the poor Piel
serves no function at all...
Let us remember again the well known case of "dibber".
Uri Hurwitz Great Neck, NY
"...the Piel,.... would seem to be multifunctional,
with a verbal plurality function as well a
factitive/causative/estimative of (generally) stative verbs.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 6:45 AM, K Randolph wrote:
>
> > Did I? Didn't you say not finding those bones is evidence against the
> > veracity of the text?
>
> That is exactly what I didn't say.
>
What do you mean by "you have no sound proposition to begin with"? By the
same standard, would not the Documentary Hypothesis also not be a "sound
proposition"? If not, why not?
Would you say that our knowledge of the Peloponesian Wars is not a sound
proposition, as they are known only from the writings of Thucidites?
Or what about the findings at the end of the 13th dynasty, where the
archaeological data show Semitic slaves leaving their abodes en mass so
suddenly and helter-skelter that valuables like tools and even jewelry were
left behind? Is that not evidence for the Exodus? If not, why not?
As for finding the bones, that would be a shocker, for the reasons I gave
before.
>
> >> Iron smelting was not known in the ANE prior to the 12th century.
> >
> > I looked up online sources, and find they are all over the map. Some say
> > that smelted iron was known as early as 3000 BC, and in Egypt by 1500 BC.
> > Others agree with you.
>
> Your source of Egypt is probably referring to a dagger from Tutankhamen's
> tomb.
> But they describe simple wrought iron. Not smelt iron. If your
> websites say it is
> smelt iron, they are wrong. A website can't make evidence that doesn't
> exist.
>
You had better learn a bit about iron technology before making such claims.
Your statement shows abject ignorance.
>
> >> or a the material of which a yoke is made (Deut 28:48).
> >
> > Look at the context, is this a literal yoke, or metaphorical?
>
> To make a metaphor, one needs something real to compare it to. It would
> make no sense to describe an iron yoke when the yokes are made of wood,
> and iron is soft and brittle.
>
Not compared to wood. Furthermore it is much, much heavier. Thus wouldn't
even the thought of such give pause?
While discussing this, a question came to mind: how common was the use of
iron, wrought iron, among the lower classes? That I was mistaken, that
rather than being rare, iron implements were much more common? Because of
iron's inferiority to bronze, it was not used for weapons or fine tools that
need to keep an edge like saws, nor among the higher classes who could
afford the superior but more expensive bronze, but because it was superior
to wood and stone tools the lower classes made use of it? And because of its
rusting and reusability, that such finds should be rare? What say other
ancient documents?
>
> >> Num
> >> 35 is particularly interesting since it is clear, as you say, that it is
> >> meant
> >> for boasting, because people who had such special tools like iron, wood,
> >> or rocks were too egotistical and if they used it to kill someone they
> must
> >> be put to death, but someone who used a humble weapon made of bronze
> >> could go free.
> >
> > What? I don't see your logic here. Or are you deliberately making a crazy
> > statement for effect?
>
> I am following your claim about boastfulness to its logical conclusion.
Not when sticks and stones are mentioned in the same context, then it makes
your statement sound off the wall.
>
>
> >> The only thing unsound is the proposition that the Pentateuch was
> >> originally a unitary work.
>
> >> For example, what evidence do you have that
> >> Deuteronomy was ever part of the same work as Gen - Num?
> >
> >
> > What evidence do you have that it wasn't? Especially after it was listed
> > that Moses (the same author) was listed as the one who wrote it and
> > delivered it?
>
> Since it appears in a separate book, all the way back to the DSS, I have
> no reason to think it was part of the same book. We see that Moses
> wrote and delivered the book -- but which -- Deuteronomy or the whole
> set of five books? The book of Deuteronomy is self contained, and
> always appears as a separate book. So there is pretty reasonable
> evidence that it is not part of the same work. The question has to be,
> why should we see it as part of the same unitary composition in the
> first place?
Didn't you see my other questions before, none of which you addressed in
this message? Didn't they already answer this objection? If not, why not?
>
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>
Karl W. Randolph.
Re: [b-hebrew] Word pairs in biblical and semitic literatures
, (continued)