An ancient obsolete plural form in 1Kings 6:4?

[Isaac Fried]

In 1Kings 6:4 we encounter the unusual plural form חַלּוֹנֵי 'windows'
וַיַּעַשׂ לַבָּיִת חַלּוֹנֵי שְׁקֻפִים אֲטוּמִים
NIV: "He made narrow windows high up in the temple walls"

The word חַלּוֹנֵי seems to be but a slight variant of חַלּוֹנַי which is possibly an ancient plural form made by the addition of the double היא-היא 'he-he', for the many, חַלּוֹנַי = חלון-היא-היא. This plural is also apparently preserved in the exaltations אדונַי שׁדַי and the name ישַי.

It is interesting that Latin too has this plural ending, as in radius and radii. The English adapted plural radiuses is made up by the addition of 'es', which is but an 'is, as', methinks.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

Isaac, this is nothing more than a masculine plural construct ending. חַלּוֹנֵי שְׁקֻפִים are two words in a genitive construct. Chalons of sh'quphim. While אֲטוּמִים is an adjective which is qualifying the sh'quphim.

What's more interesting is how various translations cope with this:
NLT--"Solomon also made narrow recessed windows throughout the Temple."
ESV--"And he made for the house windows with recessed frames."
NASB--"Also for the house he made windows with artistic frames."
KJV--"And for the house he made windows of narrow lights."
Holman--"He also made windows with beveled frames for the temple. "
ASV--"And for the house he made windows of fixed lattice-work."
Douai-Reims--"And he made in the temple oblique windows. "

Jonathan Mohler

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan says
this is nothing more than a masculine plural construct ending
Says I
The Hebrew language is not made up of "endings".

Jonathan says
What's more interesting is how various translations cope with this:
Says I
This is indeed a place where the spoken language may lead astray. Current usage assigns to שָקוּף $AQUP the meaning of 'transparent'; and to אָטוּם ATUM (related to סתום) the meaning of 'sealed, opaque'. But they are highly evolved meanings, and we need to go back and down into their respective roots.

The act שקף $AQAP, 'observe, survey, inspect, overview, loom', is but a variant of זקף ZAQAP, 'erect', תקף TAQAP, 'attack, impose', and שגב SAGAB, 'elevate', (and also of שכב $AKAB, 'lie down'). Hence the name משקוף = מה-שקוף MA-$QOP (= מזקוף or משכוב), 'lintel'. So, חַלּוֹנֵי שְׁקֻפִים אֲטוּמִים is possibly "windows framed all around".

Reciting this chapter today I was careful to read the word וּבְלוּלִּים 'and with ladders, rungs', of verse 8 as ub-E-E-luliym to point out the fact that the root of this word is לול LUL = על-הוא-על (related to לולאה), not בלל = בא-על-על.

Inserted verses 11-13 are portentous
וַיְהִי דְּבַר יהוה אֶל-שְׁלֹמֹה לֵאמֹר הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בֹנֶה, אִם תֵּלֵךְ בְּחֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי תַּעֲשֶׂה וְשָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת כָּל מִצְו‍ֹתַי לָלֶכֶת בָּהֶם וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת דְּבָרִי אִתָּךְ אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתִּי אֶל דָּוִד אָבִיךָ וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא אֶעֱזֹב אֶת עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל
Namely, building the house is not an end in itself.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

Jonathan says
this is nothing more than a masculine plural construct ending
Says I
The Hebrew language is not made up of "endings".

Your are not addressing the point. You called the "ending" an "unusual plural form." It is not. And calling an ending not an ending is nonsensical.

Jonathan says
What's more interesting is how various translations cope with this:
Says I
This is indeed a place where the spoken language may lead astray. Current usage assigns to שָקוּף $AQUP the meaning of 'transparent'; and to אָטוּם ATUM (related to סתום) the meaning of 'sealed, opaque'. But they are highly evolved meanings, and we need to go back and down into their respective roots.

While the modern usage should not inform the meaning of the BH, one can readily see that the modern "transparent" is derivative of "observe." And so with ATUM: sealed, opaque are related to the BH idea.

The act שקף $AQAP, 'observe, survey, inspect, overview, loom', is but a variant of זקף ZAQAP, 'erect', תקף TAQAP, 'attack, impose', and שגב SAGAB, 'elevate', (and also of שכב $AKAB, 'lie down'). Hence the name משקוף = מה-שקוף MA-$QOP (= מזקוף or משכוב), 'lintel'. So, חַלּוֹנֵי שְׁקֻפִים אֲטוּמִים is possibly "windows framed all around".

1. I notice שְׁקֻפִים is plural. So it seems to indicate that each חלונ is composed of many שְׁקֻפִים. Together with the adjective atumim, it suggest something like "louvered windows" or "louvered window shutters."


2. משקוף supports the above argument.

Reciting this chapter today I was careful to read the word וּבְלוּלִּים 'and with ladders, rungs', of verse 8 as ub-E-E-luliym to point out the fact that the root of this word is לול LUL = על-הוא-על (related to לולאה), not בלל = בא-על-על.

It doesn't surprise me that בלל has a geminate root. The semantic notion of rungs has an embedded distribution.

Inserted verses 11-13 are portentous
וַיְהִי דְּבַר יהוה אֶל-שְׁלֹמֹה לֵאמֹר הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בֹנֶה, אִם תֵּלֵךְ בְּחֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי תַּעֲשֶׂה וְשָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת כָּל מִצְו‍ֹתַי לָלֶכֶת בָּהֶם וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת דְּבָרִי אִתָּךְ אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתִּי אֶל דָּוִד אָבִיךָ וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא אֶעֱזֹב אֶת עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל
Namely, building the house is not an end in itself.

I agree. This is something Stephen tried to tell his accusers in Acts 7. They elevated the Temple to an inappropriate exalted place and destroyed Torah in the process. That's why Stephen quotes Isaiah:
"44“Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen. 45Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David, 46who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob.a 47But it was Solomon who built a house for him. 48Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,

49“‘Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,
or what is the place of my rest?
50Did not my hand make all these things?’

Jonathan Mohler

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan says
Your are not addressing the point. You called the "ending" an "unusual plural form." It is not. And calling an ending not an ending is nonsensical.
Says I
As I see it, the "endings" are but personal pronouns that hitched themselves to the noun or to the verb, and with time, and by fluent speech, became ablated. There is no "endings" in Hebrew, just like that. Every Hebrew pips is meaningful. The word בְּנִי, for instance, is certainly but a contracted בן - אני 'my son', as likewise,בְּנוֹ is certainly but בן-הוא 'his son'.
In the word ישראלי = ישראל-היא the "ending" היא refers to the man who is said to be of the nation of Israel. Likewise, ישראלית = ישראל-היא-את for a female.
The סמיכות SMIYKUT form בְּנֵי is in my estimation the composition בן-היא-היא, where היא is the same as הוא, 'he'.

Jonathan says
I notice שְׁקֻפִים is plural. So it seems to indicate that each חלונ is composed of many שְׁקֻפִים
Says I
What you say is interesting and makes sense, still I prefer to reserve judgement as to whether the temple windows had shutters, or not, or even if they were see-through at all. As far as I know there is no, biblical, or otherwise, reference to opening and shutting of windows in the temple.
In Judges 5:28 and Prov. 7:8 we encounter the אשנב E$NAB in connection with a window. I am inclined to regard this אשנב as some sort of an אזנב, a wooden hinged tail זנב with which to shut off the window against the weather and stray pigeons.

One thing is certain, that שקוּף is זקוּף, 'erect', namely, להשקיף is להזקיף, 'to rise in order to have a better view'. The same is with צפה, 'looked, expected, foresaw', which but a variant of שפה and צבה, 'swell'. מִצְפֶּה is certainly but a מִצְבֶּה, 'an elevation', as is מצבה and the new מצוֹף = מה-צוֹף, 'buoy', floating צף over the water.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan says
It doesn't surprise me that בלל has a geminate root
Says I
All Hebrew roots are "geminate" as they are built up of but a limited number of realistic fundamental concepts, or uniliteral roots.
The word לוּל LUL of 1Kings 6:4 consists of a double L or the doubling of the root על or אל, expressing the idea of loftiness. There are plenty of urchins sprinting over the semantic landscape of the Hebrew language who might legitimately claim geminate kinship to LUL, to wit, לוּלאה LULAH of Ex. 26:11, and עליל ALIYL, 'tower, furnace', of Ps. 12:7(6), to name but a few. לַיִל, 'night', is surely but a layer of darkness blanketing over and over, up and about, על-על the entire earth.
גמל, 'camel' has an L in it to express the fact that it is a tall גדול beast.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

All Hebrew roots are "geminate" as they are built up of but a limited number of realistic fundamental concepts, or uniliteral roots.

All Hebrew roots are "geminate"? To say that strips the very meaning of what one means by "geminate." בלל is a geminate because it doubles the /ל/. So the way to look at how the word developed is to look at possible meanings of the non-geminate form of the root, which is the bi-literal בל.

Jonathan Mohler

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan says
So the way to look at how the word developed is to look at possible meanings of the non-geminate form of the root, which is the bi-literal בל.

Says I
That's good. We agree that Hebrew words or roots developed from lower rudiments. But from what? As I see it בלל BLL did not "develop" from בל BL. What is this BL that led to BLL? And how is this "development" accomplished, by adding a just meaningless L? I don't think so. I think that בלל BLL is an amalgam of the two unilateral roots בא-עב (extended to עבה, 'thick', and similar to the English 'be'), and על-אל (extended to עלה, 'mount, rise', and similar to the English 'al-all'.)
That which is thick has a B in it, to wit: אב, 'father' and עב, 'cloud'; and that which is lofty has an L in it, to wit לוּל LUL, 'ladder',
מַעֲלֶה = מה-עלֶה, 'acclivity', (Jos. 10:10), מוֹעל = מה הוא-על, 'lifting (of the hand in greeting, salute, or supplication)', (Neh. 8:6), and the modern מעלית = מה-על-היא-את, 'elevator'.
So, בלל = עב-על-על is 'thick-up-up, thick-on-on'. Hence the בָּלִיל = עב-על-היא-על BALIYL, 'pile of fodder', of Job 6:5, and the תְּבַלֻל = את-עב-על-הוא-על TBALUL, 'crust, scab, cataract' , of Lev. 21:20.
Related to בלל is פלל 'the piling up and up of words'.

Having mentioned ליל = על-היא-על, 'night, darkness', we add the dimness, bleakness, עֲלָטָה = עלה+עטה, 'mounted and blanketed, fell and enveloped', (namely, the darkness), of Gen. 15:17.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Mark Lightman]

Related to בלל is פלל 'the piling up and up of words'.

Not to forget פִּיל, "elephant," a similar combination of the fundamental concepts of heaving and elevation.

[Isaac Fried]

And not to forget the אוֹפֶל OPEL, the pall of darkness falling נוֹפֶל upon earth. Job 23:17
כִּי לֹא נִצְמַתִּי מִפְּנֵי חֹשֶׁךְ וּמִפָּנַי כִּסָּה אֹפֶל
NIV: "Yet I am not silenced by the darkness, by the thick darkness that covers my face."

And also not to forget the עוֹפֶל OPEL, 'tower, turret, hillock' of 2Kings 5:24

שפל $PL is also tall, but in the negative.

Isaac Fried, Boston University