Tsere, a hinted patah? Gen. 27:14

[Isaac Fried]

Gen. 27:14
וַתַּעַשׂ אִמּוֹ מַטְעַמִּים (מה-טעם-הם) כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהֵב אָבִיו
NIV: "and she prepared some tasty food, just the way his father liked it"
אָהֵב (for אָהַב) is punctuated here with a tsere (two horizontal dots) under the letter ה H. Is this a compromise marking for the horizontal stroke of a patah?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Also
וַתַּעַשׂ = בא-את-עש

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

Gen. 27:14
וַתַּעַשׂ אִמּוֹ מַטְעַמִּים (מה-טעם-הם) כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהֵב אָבִיו
NIV: "and she prepared some tasty food, just the way his father liked it"
אָהֵב (for אָהַב) is punctuated here with a tsere (two horizontal dots) under the letter ה H. Is this a compromise marking for the horizontal stroke of a patah?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

It's a stative pointing. Thus I would translate it "his father is fond of". This way it describes a state not an act.

Jonathan Mohler

[Isaac Fried]

It is interesting that both NIV and KJV translate (the "participle"?) אֹהֶבֶת of Gen. 25:28
וְרִבְקָה אֹהֶבֶת אֶת יַעֲקֹב
as "loved", not as "is loving".
Love, of course, is a lingering thing.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

I recall Ps. 93:1
יְהוָה מָלָךְ גֵּאוּת לָבֵשׁ
לָבֵשׁ יְהוָה עֹז הִתְאַזָּר
in which לָבֵשׁ is seen as in the present
NIV: "The Lord reigns, he is robed in majesty; the Lord is robed in majesty and armed with strength"

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

An adjective may contain an internal reference to the object it describes. In גָּדוֹל = גד-הוא-על and עָצוּם = עצ-הוא-עם
Gen. 18:18
וְאַבְרָהָם הָיוֹ יִהְיֶה לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל וְעָצוּם
NIV: "Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation"
it is the infixed וֹ O and וּ U for HU, 'he', standing for the GOY.
In אַדִּיר = אד-היא-ר
Ezekiel 17:23
וְהָיָה לְאֶרֶז אַדִּיר
NIV: "and become a splendid cedar"
it is the infixed יִ I for היא HIY, standing for the EREZ.

is the tsere in יָבֵשׁ YABE$, 'dry'
Nu. 6:3
וַעֲנָבִים לַחִים וִיבֵשִׁים לֹא יֹאכֵל
KJV: "nor eat moist grapes, or dried."
a hint for a hireq?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Taking about adjectives, I recall Gen. 27:15
וַתִּקַּח רִבְקָה אֶת בִּגְדֵי עֵשָׂו בְּנָהּ הַגָּדֹל הַחֲמֻדֹת, אֲשֶׁר אִתָּהּ בַּבָּיִת וַתַּלְבֵּשׁ אֶת יַעֲקֹב בְּנָהּ הַקָּטָן
NIV: "Then Rebekah took the best clothes of Esau her older son, which she had in the house, and put them on her younger son Jacob."
where "the younger" is הַקָּטָן HA-QATAN, with, unlike the הַגָּדֹל, no internal personal pronouns. One may even entertain the suspicion that הַגָּדֹל could have been הַגָּדָל HA-GADAL.

But, in Gen. 19:11 (and a good number of other places) it appears as קָטֹן with an internal O for HU, the small one,
וְאֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר פֶּתַח הַבַּיִת הִכּוּ בַּסַּנְוֵרִים מִקָּטֹן וְעַד גָּדוֹל
NIV: " Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old"

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

It is interesting that both NIV and KJV translate (the "participle"?) אֹהֶבֶת of Gen. 25:28
וְרִבְקָה אֹהֶבֶת אֶת יַעֲקֹב
as "loved", not as "is loving".
Love, of course, is a lingering thing.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Interesting, in fact the hebrew is "was loving" but it sounds better as a simple past in English. This no doubt has a purpose at the discourse level. Moses had other options but chose to use the active participle. In Swahili speakers prefer the continuous present when they speak of love. They don't say "he loves her" they say, "he is loving her." When you say "I love you" to another person, you say "I am loving you."

P. S.: I wonder if the stative can ever mean "lovable." This is one way it works out in Swahili.

Jonathan Mohler

[Jemoh66]

Taking about adjectives, I recall Gen. 27:15
וַתִּקַּח רִבְקָה אֶת בִּגְדֵי עֵשָׂו בְּנָהּ הַגָּדֹל הַחֲמֻדֹת, אֲשֶׁר אִתָּהּ בַּבָּיִת וַתַּלְבֵּשׁ אֶת יַעֲקֹב בְּנָהּ הַקָּטָן
NIV: "Then Rebekah took the best clothes of Esau her older son, which she had in the house, and put them on her younger son Jacob."
where "the younger" is הַקָּטָן HA-QATAN, with, unlike the הַגָּדֹל, no internal personal pronouns. One may even entertain the suspicion that הַגָּדֹל could have been הַגָּדָל HA-GADAL.

But, in Gen. 19:11 (and a good number of other places) it appears as קָטֹן with an internal O for HU, the small one,
וְאֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר פֶּתַח הַבַּיִת הִכּוּ בַּסַּנְוֵרִים מִקָּטֹן וְעַד גָּדוֹל
NIV: " Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old"

Isaac Fried, Boston University

No the qametz in the last syllable of הַקָּטָן is a lengthened holem; it is lengthened because it is ending the phrase. So the holem is still there in the qametz. But I don't believe you make a good enough case for the internal vowels being derived from pronouns.

Jonathan Mohler

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan says
P. S.: I wonder if the stative can ever mean "lovable." This is one way it works out in Swahili.

Says I

In spoken Hebrew אכיל = אכ-היא-ל, (so close on the tongue to אָכֵל) is 'eatable'. It is with the internal personal pronoun היא for the thing that is fit to be eaten. Similarly, שביר = שב-היא-ר is 'breakable', so, אהיב = אה-היא-ב is in theory 'lovable'; but it is not in use. What is in use is אהוב = אה-הוא-ב with the internal pronoun הוא found also in שבור = שב-הוא-ר 'broken', etc..

Isaac Fried, Boston University