Page 3 of 3

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:24 am
by Isaac Fried
Notice that in Habakkuk 2:9 it is בֶּצַע רָע
הוֹי בֹּצֵעַ בֶּצַע רָע לְבֵיתוֹ
KJV "Woe to him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house"
NIV: "Woe to him who builds his house by unjust gain"

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:58 pm
by Jason Hare
Isaac Fried wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:24 am Notice that in Habakkuk 2:9 it is בֶּצַע רָע
הוֹי בֹּצֵעַ בֶּצַע רָע לְבֵיתוֹ
KJV "Woe to him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house"
NIV: "Woe to him who builds his house by unjust gain"

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
👍

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:01 pm
by Jason Hare
Refael Shalev wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:57 am יקח contains the subject and the action like לקחתי/תיקח etc.
Absolutely. Especially when it was just mentioned in the previous phrase. No one would miss that.

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:21 pm
by Refael Shalev
Isaac,

Is this observation make any difference?

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:59 pm
by Isaac Fried
In Proverbs 1:19 בֹּצֵעַ בָּצַע is a סמיכות, or a single compounded noun, and hence possibly the qametz.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:31 pm
by Jason Hare
Isaac Fried wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:59 pm In Proverbs 1:19 בֹּצֵעַ בָּצַע is a סמיכות, or a single compounded noun, and hence possibly the qametz.
בָּ֫צַע is the object of בֹּצֵעַ, and it has the qamats as a result of it being in pause (marked with the etnaḥta: כָּל־בֹּ֣צֵֽעַ בָּ֑צַע).

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:12 am
by ducky
I think that the subject of יקח is not the noun בצע but the participle בצע (the criminal)
I think it fits better in any aspect.

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:07 am
by Refael Shalev
Hi David,

According to the prior verses the sinners lark to the innocent but actually they set a trap to their souls, as well as all who takes unjust profit-that action will take their soul.

In my opinion I think that pointing just the sin is better some verses before this verse. In it's actual location the author concentrates in the aftermath.

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:20 pm
by kwrandolph
Refael Shalev wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:57 am Karl,
יקח contains the subject and the action like לקחתי/תיקח etc.
We had the same question concerning Daniel 9:27, namely what is the antecedent to the verb? In other words, what is its subject?

That the verb is at the end of the phrase is irrelevant, That is merely a matter of poetic structure.

The clause את נפש בעליו self-identifies as an object clause by the accusative marker.

The previous verses identify a gang of wicked people, without a slave owner. Then this verse closes the section as a “moral of the story”. So the verse doesn’t refer to a master/slave relationship.

So what takes the life of its master, when we don’t refer to the actor of the first phrase as a slave? Is it not then an object? Seeing as in the previous phrase that its subject is a person, the actor, that he is not the slave of the owner in the second phrase from the context, then is not the subject of the second phrase the object listed in the verse, namely the “unjust cut”? To make that clear, should not the “unjust cut” be part of the second phrase, and not the first?

The actor in the first phrase is already identified as one taking an unjust cut, so the substantive (shegolat noun) is not needed for understanding the first phrase. Why then insist that it be part of the first phrase?

To make my reading, if you want to add the points, the points indicating the pause should be on the actor, the participle that is the first בצע. Then the second בצע should be pointed as a subject of a sentence, without indications of pause.

Karl W. Randolph.