'Heh' Interrogative and the Negative particle.

[Chris Watts]

1. Are there any scriptures where a question is being asked without the use of the 'Heh' prefix?

2. Is it true to say that the Negative Particle לא when used with a disjunctive accent simply means "No" and does not necessarily negate what follows?

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

1. Are there any scriptures where a question is being asked without the use of the 'Heh' prefix?

Yes, questions concerning “Who“, “What”, “Where“ מי מה איה

2. Is it true to say that the Negative Particle לא when used with a disjunctive accent simply means "No" and does not necessarily negate what follows?

Chris watts

The accents are not Biblical, so I can’t answer that question.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

1. Are there any scriptures where a question is being asked without the use of the 'Heh' prefix?

Yes, questions concerning “Who“, “What”, “Where“ מי מה איה

2. Is it true to say that the Negative Particle לא when used with a disjunctive accent simply means "No" and does not necessarily negate what follows?

Chris watts

The accents are not Biblical, so I can’t answer that question.

Karl W. Randolph.

I was trying to avoid a lengthy post, but it seems I have failed again to communicate. I will try again:

1. Are there any scriptures beside the "who, what, where" where a question is being asked without the use of the Heh prefix. For example: Mark Futato, in his book, offers an intriguing translation to Deuteronomy 32:5.

שִׁחֵ֥ת ל֛וֹ לֹ֖א בָּנָ֣יו מוּמָ֑ם דּ֥וֹר עִקֵּ֖שׁ וּפְתַלְתֹּֽל "Has He (God) acted corruptly against Himself? No! His children have the fault.

Points I notice:

a) This translation fits the context, following on from what is said in verse 4 that is;
b) Other translations I have read seem awkward and clumsy and I fail to see how the most basic grammatical rule can be ignored by turning a 3rd person singular into a 3rd person plural??? when they take the verb שִׁחֵ֥ת to be plural;
c) The fact that the לֹ֖א has a disjunctive accent surely can not be ignored. The masoretes understood something here that the other translations seem to disagree with.


Karl, I know that you do not accept the accents and the vowels as Biblical, (though what I believe you really mean is that you do not believe they are inspired by God), they do however give us a valuable insight into how the masoretes received the traditional spoken and read text, it is unacceptable to assume that anybody, no matter how intellectually astute they are in biblical languages in the 21st century, that they can assume themselves to have a better understanding and knowledge about what is being both written and grammatically commented upon than those who lived 1500 years ago, speaking, reading and living within spitting distance of their ancestors. If we do not understand something, it is a little presumptuous for us to think that the mistake is theirs, rather better to assume that they did indeed know exactly what they were thinking whenever they pointed or accented this or that word, but 1500 years of culture and language barriers makes it difficult at times for us to know exactly why they did such and such a thing, surely this is better than simply assuming that these points and accents are not biblical? or inspired by a strict and solemn motivation to preserve the Holy text, as I prefer to believe.

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

I was trying to avoid a lengthy post, but it seems I have failed again to communicate. I will try again:

1. Are there any scriptures beside the "who, what, where" where a question is being asked without the use of the Heh prefix. For example: Mark Futato, in his book, offers an intriguing translation to Deuteronomy 32:5.

שִׁחֵ֥ת ל֛וֹ לֹ֖א בָּנָ֣יו מוּמָ֑ם דּ֥וֹר עִקֵּ֖שׁ וּפְתַלְתֹּֽל "Has He (God) acted corruptly against Himself? No! His children have the fault.

Thanks for giving me the address. Looking at that verse, we need to consider the context. Verses four and five are considered a unit. Then verse six starts another question. Verse four starts with the interrogative Heh. Therefore this is not an example of a question without an interrogative Heh.

Translation is not the same as reading in the original language. English works better splitting those verses into two sentences.

Points I notice:

a) This translation fits the context, following on from what is said in verse 4 that is;
b) Other translations I have read seem awkward and clumsy and I fail to see how the most basic grammatical rule can be ignored by turning a 3rd person singular into a 3rd person plural??? when they take the verb שִׁחֵ֥ת to be plural;

Is שחת a verb? Or is this another example of incorrect pointing by the Masoretes?

c) The fact that the לֹ֖א has a disjunctive accent surely can not be ignored. The masoretes understood something here that the other translations seem to disagree with.

What is the function of this “disjunctive accent”? If it is to disassociate לא from בניו, then it is wrong.

Karl, I know that you do not accept the accents and the vowels as Biblical, (though what I believe you really mean is that you do not believe they are inspired by God), they do however give us a valuable insight into how the masoretes received the traditional spoken and read text,

Yes, it does give insight to how the Masoretes thought when reading the text.

it is unacceptable to assume that anybody, no matter how intellectually astute they are in biblical languages in the 21st century, that they can assume themselves to have a better understanding and knowledge about what is being both written and grammatically commented upon than those who lived 1500 years ago, speaking, reading and living within spitting distance of their ancestors.

Two points here.

First, I would call a thousand years hardly “spitting distance”. This is a thousand years since we have records that indicate that Hebrew was already no longer the language of market or hearth. During that time pronunciation changed, grammar changed, words acquired different meanings, words were forgotten and sometimes other words took their place, probably greater change than from Shakespeare to modern English. If the Masoretes based their understanding of Tanakh on the Tiberian Hebrew of their day (which is what I assume), they misunderstood much of Biblical Hebrew. And their points reflect their misunderstandings.

Modern professors who base their understanding of ancient Hebrew on the Tiberian readings of Tanakh, follow the same misunderstandings of the text.

Secondly, based on the above, it is unacceptable to assume that the Masoretes were correct in their vowels and accents that they invented. Even modern rabbis feel free to disagree with points when they think other points make a better reading, from what I have read from other sources.

(Tradition says that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Yet no examples of his Hebrew original survive. Did God cause all the originals to be destroyed, because they were written in DSS Hebrew which already differed from Biblical Hebrew?)

If we do not understand something, it is a little presumptuous for us to think that the mistake is theirs, rather better to assume that they did indeed know exactly what they were thinking whenever they pointed or accented this or that word, but 1500 years of culture and language barriers makes it difficult at times for us to know exactly why they did such and such a thing, surely this is better than simply assuming that these points and accents are not biblical?

Who said that this is merely assuming? Or is it based on evidence?

or inspired by a strict and solemn motivation to preserve the Holy text, as I prefer to believe.

Chris watts

They did a remarkable job in preserving the consonantal text. Often their points indicate a different meaning than the consonantal text that they preserved.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi,

This verse is hard to read and understand. It is not about Hebrew. It is because how this verse is written.

Therefore, it can lead the reader to many possibilities.
שחת can be a noun and also a verb.
The subject can be God, Israel, and also the word מומם.
The לא בניו can be read together, or not.
Even taking it as a reference to Israel's claim.
And more.

Therefore, "there is no wrong answer" here.
Unless there is a smoking gun for one option.

*****
A few notes about what is read above.

You quote Mark Futato's translation, and you can check also the JPS translation.
He reads שחת as a verb, and the JPS as a noun.

*****
Why claiming that verse 4 starts with the interrogative Heh? Is that a question?

*****
The word שחת can lead to a verb or to a noun. With the same pointing.
לא בניו can be read together or not.

****
If reading לא-בניו as one, then it is easier to read שחת as a verb.
If reading שחת as a noun, it is easier to read לא בניו as not connected.

[Chris Watts]

Karl, I was about to ask you why on earth you thought that verse 4 began with an interrogative Heh, it is not my friend, it is an emphatic Noun, a big Noun establishing God's prominence. Also Karl regarding the disjunctive accent, the Tifcha that separates this negative particle from 'His Children", in spite of the rebellions and faithlessness of some, whether it be the majority, or the minority, one might sympathise with the masoretes for placing the disjunctive here otherwise the verse reads as if Israel are not His children. In spite of everything that had happened, there is absolutely no biblical evidence to support this belief. Hence how can one disagree with that disjunctive accent? The English translators join the negative particle with 'His Children' and consequently they have no choice but to end up with an absurd translation losing any sense that might have existed beforehand.

Ducky, you just about cleared things up for me. There is nothing but ambiguity here, is their a wrong answer? It seems not. I have been scratching my head over this and trying to decided whether שִׁחֵ֥ת should be a noun or a verb and its consequences. I suppose this is a case of being too far removed from the linguistic subtlety of the times in order to arrive at the original motivating thought behind such a construction. However the overall theme of this particular half verse is not without its clarity - namely that God's ways are without fault but the generation passing through the wilderness are at fault.

Chris watts

[ducky]

Indeed.

Just a note about לא בניו read together.
As I said above, the verse can also be read like that.
the לא בניו in the meaning of "not-his-sons".
The "not-his-son" comes with the meaning of (lack) worthiness.
As a disrespectful way to call his sons that do not act as expected from his sons.
As if taking away their title "sons".

[Chris Watts]

Hi Ducky, I have just seen the JPS translation and was very surprised to see that they followed the disjunctive accent, and they also keep to the 3rd person masculine. Their translation does make sense.

Just a note about לא בניו read together

. I would, unfortunately, have to disagree on this one point I think, partly for what I said before but also if you read verse 6, this negates the idea all together since God here calls Himself their Father.

So we take this as a nominal clause. Do you agree?

Chris watts

[ducky]

Hi,

Me, personally, reading it as a question is the less favored way (for me).
I'd rather see this as a statement from beginning to end.
(But as I said, in this case, no wrong answers).

*****
Verse 6 indeed can be used as a support to rule out לא-בניו as one unit. But on the other hand, it can be used to support this reading.
As After they were called "not-his-sons" (as not behaving according to their worth), Verse 6 comes and say that you should remember that God is your father, as an emphasis.

Plus, the fact that there is, in the same chapter, usage of בלא-עם, בלא-אל which reminds this style.
Also, I saw in one commentary book (which claims that this verse is corrupt, by the way) an example from Assyrian letter which says:
"(when you said these words), you turned yourself into a non-gentleman and me, you turned me into an ungrateful son".
"Ungrateful son" is the understanding through the context. Literally is "not-your-son".
You can see this on page 316 in the Assyrian dictionary (that can be found on the internet).

*****
Also, reading the singular verb form שחת with the meaning of plural has an excuse.
For example, verse 7 where it starts with זכר (singular) and continues with בינו (plural).

****
I also tend to read it as nominal.

[Chris Watts]

Plus, the fact that there is, in the same chapter, usage of בלא-עם, בלא-אל which reminds this style.

Could you give me the verse numbers for these please - there are 52 verses to get through!

Also, reading the singular verb form שחת with the meaning of plural has an excuse.
For example, verse 7 where it starts with זכר (singular) and continues with בינו (plural)

To be honest I do not see this as a convincing case to justify translating שִׁחֵ֥ת in the plural. "Remember the days of old" I see no issue with "Remember" being 3rd Person singular here.

All in all you make very good points Ducky and they are helpful in grasping subtle issues I had not thought about.

Chris watts