Ex 5,18

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
sebalou
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon May 22, 2017 3:31 am
Location: Belgium

Ex 5,18

Postby sebalou » Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:01 pm

Dear colleagues,

in Ex 5,18 we find the verb תִּתֵּֽנּוּ

Could someone help me understand the dagesh in the nun?

In my opinion, this is not an energic nun as this kind of nun appears only with suffixes. Here we have a yiqtol, 2 m.pl. Unless we see a yiqtol 2 m. sg. with the suffix 3 m. sg. => titten + n (energic nun) + hu (suffix 3 m. sg.) => tittennhu => tittennu. But most translations say "you will give" ("you" as 2 m. pl., so in French).

Thanks in advance for your help.

Kind regards,
Sébastien Louis (Belgium)
Sébastien Louis (Belgium)

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Ex 5,18

Postby Jason Hare » Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:40 pm

Without any context (quoting the verse is a good idea!), I'd read it as you've proposed.

I'm on my phone at work. I might possibly read it differently if that didn't work in the context.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

User avatar
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Ex 5,18

Postby Kirk Lowery » Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:52 pm

Yes, this pointing is unusual. I consulted the standard grammars (GKC, J-M, van der Merwe), and none of them cite this form or discuss it with reference to Ex 5:18.

The normal form of the qal impf 2mp is תִּתֵּֽנוּ, without the extra dagesh. My guess is that the extraneous dagesh is phonological (intonational) because it is the last word of the verse and so in pause, and has no morphological significance.

So...a simple qal imperfect 2mp, as you suggest.
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1498
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Ex 5,18

Postby Isaac Fried » Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:31 pm

In the mechon-mamre online tanakh
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0205.htm
it is indeed תִּתֵּנוּ and so in my paper books.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

User avatar
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Ex 5,18

Postby Kirk Lowery » Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:34 am

Isaac,

I had not considered the possibility of textual variants. I don't have a lot of manuscript resources, but I do have the Leningrad Codex facsimile to consult:

LeningradEx5-18.png


The dagesh is quite clearly there. A. Dotan, Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia has the dagesh, and he does not hesitate to edit nikkud when he thinks necessary. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia critical apparatus says, "sic L, mlt Mss Edd תִּתֵּנוּ", i.e., "Leningradensis is wrong, other major manuscripts and printed editions omit that pesky dagesh".

I'm reluctant to condemn the scribe to error. Those old boys were very careful about pronunciation, even when it was "difficult". If we step up from this low level to that of "making sense" of the passage, my opinion is that we're safe in ignoring the dagesh without additional manuscript evidence that (for example) a pronominal suffix is intended adding an additional missing nun. The dagesh is clear, solid and distinct, so I conclude it was deliberate.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Ex 5,18

Postby Jason Hare » Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:03 pm

I also made an image with the Leningrad Codex before I saw that Kirk had done so. I don't want to waste the effort that I put into it, so here it is:

Image

The reading is obviously easier without the dagesh. It seems that it would be enough just to recognize that the dagesh is there in the Codex and go with the other manuscripts for your understanding.
Last edited by Jason Hare on Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

sebalou
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon May 22, 2017 3:31 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Ex 5,18

Postby sebalou » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:24 am

Dear all,

many thanks for your input.

It seems we deal with a peculiar case here. Though it is quite difficult or impossible to explain the dagesh, it seems obvious we have anyway a yiqtol 2 mp.

Thanks again for your research and your time.

Sébastien Louis (Belgium)
Sébastien Louis (Belgium)

User avatar
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Ex 5,18

Postby Kirk Lowery » Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:34 am

I was going to check the Aleppo text to see whether it has the dagesh or not, but unfortunately Aleppo does not have Exodus. :-(
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh

Isaac Fried
Posts: 1498
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Ex 5,18

Postby Isaac Fried » Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:32 pm

The dagesh in the nun of תִּתֵּנּוּ is possibly placed there to hint that the second tav is with a tsere and not a schwa, thus: תִּתְּנּוּ. The dagesh in the lamed of חָדֵלּוּ of Judges 5:7 is possibly of the same nature.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Saboi

Re: Ex 5,18

Postby Saboi » Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:34 pm

The differences is explained through the Septuagint.

Exodus 5:21 - תִּתֵּֽנּוּ "Tit-ten-nu" (ἀποδίδοτε)
Leviticus 25:24 - תִּתְּנוּ "Tit-te-nu" (δίδοτε)

The word in Exodus 5:21 as a baked-in preposition, the 'ἀπο' > 'π' > "n" (Labial).

תִּתֵּֽנּוּ/ἀποδίδοτε; "give an account" cf. "the tale of bricks" that semantically differs from תִּתְּנוּ/δίδοτε. "give".


Return to “Classical Hebrew Language & Linguistics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest