B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Jonathan Beck wrote:Here is mine. ִI'm trying my best to do mine from memory so I can't always remember things exactly. I have a couple of questions on some stuff.

Hidden Text

וַיְדַבֵּר יהוה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵאמֹר לָמָה תִזְעַק אֵלַי׃ דַּבֵּר אֲלֵיהֶם וְהָלְכוּ בְתוֹךְ־הַיָּם וְרָאוּ כִי לֹא אֱעֶזֹבֵהֶם

Instead of אֱעֶזֹבֵהֶם, look up אֶעֶזְבֵם.

אֶעֱזֹב + ם > *אֶעֱזֹבֵם > *אֶעֱזְבֵם > אֶעֶזְבֵם

The thematic vowel is dropped because "near syllable reduces" in verbs. That is, the syllable before the tone (with a couple of exceptions). That vowel reduces to a sheva, which results in a composite sheva before a vowel sheva. The composite sheva can't hold a syllable on its own, so it is lengthened to a full vowel (segol). The sheva that remains is medial, effectively both closing the previous syllable (-ez-) and opening the next (-zəḇēm).

Again, I'd go with a directional preposition after הלך such as אל־תוך הים or (less likely) לתוך היום.

Fun!!!

Jason Hare wrote:Oh, Ste... I wanted to ask why you chose אֶתְהֶם instead of אֹתָם. I'm not sure that I'd seen that form. It appears five times in the Tanach. Personally, I went with the object suffix.

It's mainly because I get אתם confused with meaning "you" rather than "-them", and that I learned הם as meaning "them"; plus I'd already used הם as a suffix previously in the verse (אֲלֵיהֶם) which must've subconsciously affected how I saw the final bit too.

Also IIRC, אתהם has a more frequent occurrence in the DSS than it does in the Masoretic Tanakh. I shall have to check on this last bit and get back to you.

Edit:
Nope, very much wrong about this last bit, heh.

Interestingly though, the spelling אתמה meaning "you" is used quite a bit in the sectarian manuscripts, such as the War Scroll:

Col 10:2
לאמור שמעה ישראל אתמה קרבים היום למלחמה על אויביכמה אל תירא ואל ירך לבבכמה
saying: ‘Listen Israel, today you are approaching the battle against your enemies. Do not be afraid, and may your heart not fail;

Also notice all the paragogic heh]'s on words you would expect just to have final mem -ם. We also have some plene ו's too.

After posting and going off to the gym for exercise, then a shower, my mind came back to a question concerning this sentence: in dealing with an abstract idea that’s not a visible action, in this case “to abandon”, did the ancient Hebrews use the word “to see” or did they use the word “to know”?

In English we use the term “to see” also metaphorically to refer to knowing and understanding abstract ideas. But are there examples in Tanakh of a similar use of “to see”? I have a nagging feeling in the back of my mind that the ancient Hebrews did not use “to see” in a metaphorical sense to refer to abstract ideas.

Of course I could be wrong.

Karl W. Randolph.

Hi Karl,

The root ראה has more meaning than a physical seeing.
One of them is an "understanding" - as one who "opens his eyes" about a situation.

Anyway, I saw your translation, and I feel that you see the problem in these source sentences as I do.

I feel that the sentences are just a combination of words that when we translate them as they are, it just doesn't seem natural.
I guess that the purpose is more focused on producing the sentence right according to the grammar and syntax rules.
But anyway, for me, it sounds, not natural.

And so, I also think that root ידע fits better here.

And I also saw that you wrote עזבתים - which is also better because that way it sounds more natural to that small context he wrote.

Genesis 7:1
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ לְנֹ֔חַ בֹּֽא־אַתָּ֥ה וְכָל־בֵּיתְךָ֖ אֶל־הַתֵּבָ֑ה כִּֽי־אֹתְךָ֥ רָאִ֛יתִי צַדִּ֥יק לְפָנַ֖י בַּדּ֥וֹר הַזֶּֽה

In this case, is "righteous" an abstract idea? In the case of "not abandoning", that is technically the result of an action; thus is the idea of someone being "righteous" as a result of their actions of sorts.

In this case, it could be easily comprehended as "for I have understood you are righteous in this generation."

Also, consider Genesis 20:10:
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲבִימֶ֖לֶךְ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֑ם מָ֣ה רָאִ֔יתָ כִּ֥י עָשִׂ֖יתָ אֶת־הַדָּבָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה

Here ראה is in the sense of "thinking": what were you thinking that you did this thing?!

One final one: Genesis 26:28:
וַיֹּאמְר֗וּ רָא֣וֹ רָאִינוּ֮ כִּֽי־הָיָ֣ה יְהוָ֣ה׀ עִמָּךְ֒ וַנֹּ֗אמֶר תְּהִ֨י נָ֥א אָלָ֛ה בֵּינוֹתֵ֖ינוּ בֵּינֵ֣ינוּ וּבֵינֶ֑ךָ וְנִכְרְתָ֥ה בְרִ֖ית עִמָּֽךְ
For we clearly see that YHWH exists with you....

Technically they couldn't physically see YHWH with them; but they could know and understand what was happening was the result of a gods presence.

I personally think the idea of seeing =/= knowing is germane to most, if not all, languages.

S_Walch wrote:Technically they couldn't physically see YHWH with them; but they could know and understand what was happening was the result of a gods presence.

OK, I was wrong. Thanks for the info.

Karl W. Randolph.

I assume that in every language is like this, that the "seeing" is also "knowing and understanding"

Also in English: The word "Wise" is the brother of "Vision"
The wise is the seeing one - the one who open his eyes to the situation and reality.

**
And in Hebrew, we can see this link on a few roots
the root of בין - which has the two meanings
the root of שכל
the root of פקח
and so on...

It seems like we're losing interest here. Not sure where everyone went. Is it because the exercise thread was broken up? Should we just use the same thread for everything? It's good to have your back-and-forth on these things.