Dear Rolf,Return-Path: <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
You said:
Regarding the Egyptian material I will
add that the two occurrences of the name of God
YHW(W) have been found in in Soleb in the reign
of Amenhopis III (14th century B.C.E.) and one
occurrence i Amarna West in the temple of Raamses
II (13th century). The name is associated with
nomads living in an area including the later land
of Israel. As for the Amarna letters, to the
Canaanite glosses we can add some West Semitic
grammatical elements. So, people speaking a West
Semitic language definitely lived in the land of
Canaan in the 14th century. And they even may
have worshiped YHWH. And as you say, it is
obvious that their language did not originate
suddenly in that century.
Bryant:
Please send references to the above including links (if possible).
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Aramaic to Hebrew language switch?
From randallbuth AT gmail.com Sun Sep 5 08:24:57 2010
The lack of yod is the expected form of a Hif`il imperative withoutBut what about the many times that the medial yod is missing in narrative?
a suffix.
>> As mentioned, your starting point was off,
>> since the root would not be 'establish' but more like
>> 'be stable, positioned unwavering, be firm'.
>
Where do you get that definition? Thatâs not the definition I find when
making a descriptive definition based on looking up all its uses in
Tanakh, using a concordance.
You didnât answer my question.
But how do you know and show that this "inflectional view" is not
the influence of 'first year pedagogy'
Another thing, I look at words for the actions they refer to,
questions start with a prefixed (prefixed to the
sentence or phrase that is a question) × heh. So the sentence
should have started with ×××
Then in your follow-up question, there are other errors: ×××××ת does not
take a prefix, as in Isaiah 36:11, the same way ×ר××ת in the same verse;
××ת××× is usually ×××ª× ××ש in Hebrew, making that questionJust when things were communicating, we get adiaphora. Why change to
××× ×ª×ת×× ×©×××ת
×××××ת , e.g. Ruth 3:18.
I have been known not to catch everything, so can you give me Biblical
examples of exclamations starting with ××× ?
...>>  ×× ×ª×פץ ××ª× ×× ×××× ××× ×©Öµ× ×פֹעַ×. ××
××, ×× ×ª××ר ×¢× 'ש×' ×× 'פע×'.
>
> This makes no sense in Biblical Hebrew.
You are using words in ways never found in Biblical Hebrew.
You missed the point. ×ס××××ת××× would mean
âout from that which is around themâ,
in other words, âout of contextâ
when what you meant to say âin their contextâ.
you mean Aramaic, the language spoken in Canaan when that
prophesy was fulfilled? After all, there was a word at that time for
Hebrew if Hebrew were meant.
Your comment is too shallow and doesn't help.
After all, there was a word in Isaiah's time if Aramaic was meant,
aramit.
As for Hebrew, they were then using yehudit for the restricted
Southern-Kigdom-Hebrew. sefat Kena`an is better than yedudit.
You have no evidence other than your presuppositions
that שפת ×× ×¢× = Hebrew.
Samaria having been deported and those who replaced Samaria did
not speak Hebrew.
But this is a side issue.
Where is your evidence that the Northern Kingdom spoke a different Hebrew
before they were deported?
Please try to understand what you are arguing against. You still don't
seem to have understood 'my' position that from language use a hif`il
and a hof`al are the same word. Those truly are inflexional.
So some of the binyanim are inflections, and some etymologies? Or are you
saying that groups or pairs of inflections are etymologies? I donât see the
logic of your position. Previously, from the way you argued, I had the
impression that you thought that all binyanim are etymologies.
I donât believe in Occam. I have seen too many examples in many areas that
show the fallacy of that thought.
do not multiply entities unless necessary. If unambiguous
cases are 100% hif`il/hof`al,
This is already a change from your earlier position.
I contest that they are all hiphils and hophals.
It is you who claims that different binyan are different meanings. I
disagree with that.
higgid means 'to transfer information from one person to another.'
That is still translation.
'etymology' is not something that one believes in, it is a description
of the history and development of a word.
That is, if the word has a history of development. But if we are dealing
with inflections, then there is no history, as inflections occur at the same
time.
Even if you can prove that every use is within a semantic field of
communication, that does not prove that the word itself refers to the action
of communicationâit could refer to a supporting action that helps with the
communication.
And at least one example I gave appears not to be in a communication
semantic field.
This search has also caused me to revise slightly my understanding of
the verb, to a more activist meaning, namely more of âto go
beforeâ more than âto be beforeâ, and where there is an object, âto
set
beforeâ. ...
Genesis 14:13 âa survivor came and went before Abramâ
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.