dwashbur | 1 Nov 2010 01:52
Favicon

Re: lock without a key

How do you translate xyl in these respective verses?

On 31 Oct 2010 at 16:06, fred burlingame wrote:

> Hello all:
> 
> a little arithmetic.
> 
> 1 = 2; or 2 = 2
> 
> Biblical hebrew ("BH") language enjoys a unique characteristic. The
> language
> frequently employs a single word, twice or more, in physical
> proximity.
> The single word however, denotes a different meaning in each
> location.
> 
> Translations capture the different meanings of the single word, but
> lose the
> connexity of the verses, and the depth of the single hebrew word in
> the
> process. Witness:  :
> 
>        
>        
> 
> 
> numbers 31:9
> 
>       
(Continue reading)

Arnaud Fournet | 1 Nov 2010 05:07
Picon

Re: Yemenite Hebrew

What about shin and sin in Yemenite Hebrew?

South Arabic is also conservative for laterals.

Arnaud Fournet

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Will Parsons" <wbparsons@...>
To: <jkilmon@...>
Cc: <b-hebrew@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Yemenite Hebrew

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:15:17 -0500, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> 
wrote:
> I'll check out the Wiki thing.  The last time I was in Israel, I stayed 
> with
> a friend of mine at Tel Aviv University. He was a Yemenite Jew and was
> explaining some of the phonology.  It has become an item of interest now
> because I am doing a lot of work on ancient inscriptions.  It's natural 
> when
> you read them to wonder about things like phonology, sibilants, waw
> consecutives, etc.  I guess what intrigued me is what circumstances would
> preserve archaisms in phonology in Hebrew spoken in Yemen if, in fact, it 
> is
> true.

There may be some justification for thinking that in certain respects the
Yemenite pronunciation may be more archaic that Ashkenazic and Sephardic.

(Continue reading)

Kevin Riley | 1 Nov 2010 08:04
Picon

Re: Yemenite Hebrew

No, sin is pronounced as samekh.  Did the Yemeni Jews speak one of the 
South Arabian languages, or just a local form of Arabic?

Kevin Riley

On 1/11/2010 3:07 PM, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> What about shin and sin in Yemenite Hebrew?
>
> South Arabic is also conservative for laterals.
>
>
> Arnaud Fournet
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Will Parsons" 
> <wbparsons@...>
> To: <jkilmon@...>
> Cc: <b-hebrew@...>
> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 10:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Yemenite Hebrew
>
>
>
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:15:17 -0500, "Jack Kilmon" 
> <jkilmon@...> wrote:
>> I'll check out the Wiki thing.  The last time I was in Israel, I 
>> stayed with
>> a friend of mine at Tel Aviv University. He was a Yemenite Jew and was
(Continue reading)

Steve Miller | 1 Nov 2010 11:33
Picon
Favicon

Re: 2 Samuel 23:3

Hi Kenneth,

It is unusual to me that the verb mashal just about always uses the
preposition B for ruling over. Usually the preposition is optional if the
meaning is clear without it, and I would have expected it to be absent more,
but it is almost always there except for the 2 verses you cite + Is 28:14. 

In the case of 2 Sam 23:3, it makes much more sense to mean "ruling in the
fear of God" than "ruling over the fear of God", so to get your meaning, I
think the preposition B would be required. In the 3 verses without B, there
is no other meaning that can be deduced.

Also, I don't think it makes sense to say that a righteous man rules over
the fear of God.  There is no other place in the Bible that says that, and I
don't think it is true in experience.

For the 1st part of the verse, I think it makes more sense, and it is much
better writing, for God to tell David that a ruler of men is to be righteous
than for God to say, The Rock of Israel rules over mankind. There would be
no purpose to the word dabar. Is dabar used that way anywhere else?

Sincerely,
-Steve Miller
Detroit
www.voiceInWilderness.info
No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus.
His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. -
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

> -----Original Message-----
(Continue reading)

Arnaud Fournet | 1 Nov 2010 10:30
Picon

Re: Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod


> Of course languages change, yet they may still remain the same. A 
> definite statement about what is "the same" and what is "different" 
> requires a norm, or a measure, which is elusive for such a  complicated 
> thing as language.
***
If we look at phonetics, we can characterize the discontinuities between 
Ancient Hebrew and Modern Hebrew:

1. Prosody: lost
2. Vowels: length is lost
3. Weak and accented vowels: thoroughly transformed
4. Glottalized emphatics: lost
5. Laryngeals and pharyngeals: lost
6. Fricatives: lost
7. Laterals fricatives: lost
8. Affricates: lost (except Tsade)

The discontinuity between Ancient Hebrew and Modern Hebrew is worse than 
that between French and most kreyols based on French.
The ancient phonetics is entirely ruined.
A.
***

> Yet I believe that were Moses to  reappeared today in a coffee house in 
> Tel Aviv he would understand  most of the talk.
***
I seriously doubt that.
In my opinion, he would characterize Modern Hebrew as a funny foreign 
language with traces of Ancient Hebrew in it.
(Continue reading)

Arnaud Fournet | 1 Nov 2010 13:27
Picon

Re: Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ISAAC FRIED" <if@...>
To: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
Cc: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew@...>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod

Like me, you also seem to have a lively imagination, and a penchant  
for historical fiction.

Isaac Fried
***

I prefer prehistorical fiction!
Lasts longer. 

Arnaud Fournet
jimstinehart | 1 Nov 2010 13:30
Picon
Favicon

Re: Eve and the Hivites


Karl and George Athas:

George Athas wrote:  “‘Tent Village’ in Hebrew is חַוָּה.  ‘To declare’ in Hebrew is
חוה.  How ‘bout that!  Must be a lot of announcements made in tent villages. I wonder what language
they’re made in?”

Before following up on the key clue that George Athas’s apt comment presents [as noted by many scholars,
three of whom are quoted below], let me first note that the main meaning of “Eve”/XWH is “life”,
based on the Hebrew verb XWH, literally meaning “to breathe”, but hence meaning “to live”.  Karl
makes an interesting point when he says:  “This is an etymological error in that the noun for Eve is a
feminine with the final -H part of the noun, not an add-on.”  The underlying verb is XWH, with a final he/H,
and the name “Eve” is XWH, with that same final he/H.  But to me, the archaic 2-consonant root here is XW,
and the final he/H is a suffix.  But having said that, and be that as it may, on this thread we should give
careful consideration to the sound of XWH, including the final he/H, in trying to understand the names XWH
and XWY.

Note that the meaning “life” is super-positive as the main meaning of the name “Eve”/XWH.  But
something seems askew here.  Adam does not give his woman that name until after Eve has first led him [and
hence all mankind] astray, and after YHWH has reamed out both of them but good for their improper actions in
the Garden of Eden.  Thus one would rightly expect that the name XWH may well have a secondary meaning, which
is not positive.  The XW-Y/Hivites for their part are certainly viewed negatively in the Bible, that’s
for sure.  It seems odd that the Hivite bad guys would be given a fictional name based on the super-positive
word for “life”.  Perhaps for that reason the traditional etymology of “Hivites” is “tent
villagers”, a meaning that George Athas specifically references [though George rightly does not
purport to tie that meaning to the Biblical Hivites at Shechem].  But a meaning of “tent villagers” for
XWY in fact makes no sense at all in chapter 34 of Genesis, where we’re dealing with the city of Shechem
[which both Biblically and historically had a “gate”, per Genesis 34: 20], not a tent village.

The new idea I want to explore on this thread is whether there may be some connection of XWY/“Hivites” to
(Continue reading)

ISAAC FRIED | 1 Nov 2010 13:25

Re: Piel Participles of ayin-waw-yod

Like me, you also seem to have a lively imagination, and a penchant  
for historical fiction.

Isaac Fried

On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:30 AM, Arnaud Fournet wrote:

>
>
>> Of course languages change, yet they may still remain the same. A  
>> definite statement about what is "the same" and what is  
>> "different" requires a norm, or a measure, which is elusive for  
>> such a  complicated thing as language.
> ***
> If we look at phonetics, we can characterize the discontinuities  
> between Ancient Hebrew and Modern Hebrew:
>
> 1. Prosody: lost
> 2. Vowels: length is lost
> 3. Weak and accented vowels: thoroughly transformed
> 4. Glottalized emphatics: lost
> 5. Laryngeals and pharyngeals: lost
> 6. Fricatives: lost
> 7. Laterals fricatives: lost
> 8. Affricates: lost (except Tsade)
>
> The discontinuity between Ancient Hebrew and Modern Hebrew is worse  
> than that between French and most kreyols based on French.
> The ancient phonetics is entirely ruined.
> A.
(Continue reading)

fred burlingame | 1 Nov 2010 14:57
Picon

Re: lock without a key

wealth and army

regards,

fred burlingame

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:52 PM, <dwashbur@...> wrote:

> How do you translate xyl in these respective verses?
>
> On 31 Oct 2010 at 16:06, fred burlingame wrote:
>
> > Hello all:
> >
> > a little arithmetic.
> >
> > 1 = 2; or 2 = 2
> >
> > Biblical hebrew ("BH") language enjoys a unique characteristic. The
> > language
> > frequently employs a single word, twice or more, in physical
> > proximity.
> > The single word however, denotes a different meaning in each
> > location.
> >
> > Translations capture the different meanings of the single word, but
> > lose the
> > connexity of the verses, and the depth of the single hebrew word in
> > the
> > process. Witness:  :
(Continue reading)

Arnaud Fournet | 1 Nov 2010 14:56
Picon

Re: Eve and the Hivites


From:  jimstinehart <at> aol.com :
[...]

> Although [to the best of my knowledge] no one but me has ever tried to tie 
> together XWH and XWY, scholars routinely do make the following analysis of 
> “Eve”:
>
> 1.  “Khawwah…is Eve’s name in Hebrew.  …Khawwah may be a Hebracized form 
> of Heba, Hebat, Khebat or Kheba, who was the wife of the Hittite storm god 
> worshipped in Jerusalem.”  Shoni Labowitz, “God, Sex and Women of the 
> Bible” (2001) at p. 86.  [That last comment, though it’s not fully 
> accurate, is based on the fact that in the Amarna Letters, the name of the 
> ruler of Jerusalem is IR-Xeba (where I am using X for heth, instead of H 
> or Kh).]
>
> 2.  “Eve can be identified with the goddess Hepa, Hiptu, Hebatu, or Hebat, 
> wife of the Hittite storm-god….”  Raphael Patai, “Robert Graves and the 
> Hebrew Myths” (1992), at p. 225.
>
> 3.  “[I]ntervocalic *b [in Hurrian] may develop to West Semitic b > w 
> [w]….  Therefore…there may have been an identification of Hurr. Xeba…with 
> West Semitic Xawwa…‘Eve’.”  Martha A. Morrison, “Studies on the 
> Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians” (1981), at p. 85. 
> [Here I am rendering the heth in the original as X.]
***

There are in fact excellent reasons to think that Heba, Hebat is not a 
native Hurrian goddess nor native name.
Hurrian words (especially nouns) normally never end with a -t, and they 
(Continue reading)


Gmane