Karl: You could be correct, in all of your points.
but ..... i have some doubts. As I mentioned in my response to Stephen's post, I see a difference between a comic book usage of homonym; and a קדש book usage of homonym. I believe the latter type book more inclined to employ a richer usage of the homonym than the comic book. This conclusion finds support in the ubiquitous nature of books today; contrasted with the relatively rare occurrence of books in 1010 a.d. I just don't see wasted or frivolous word play in the latter, given the scarcity and value of such resources. As for the dashes and dots surrounding the words, I tend to agree with you. I don't see any of those markings on the dead sea scrolls or other ancient inscriptions. regards, fred burlingame On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:06 PM, K Randolph <[email protected]> wrote: > Fred: > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM, fred burlingame <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Karl: >> >> … >> >> And so, imho, "na-hal" used to convey different meanings of "inheritance" >> and "stream valley" in close proximity, connects those two meanings in more >> than an incidental manner. >> > > Not necessarily. > > If English were spelled phonetically, we would have three words spelled > “tu” but which are presently spelled “to”, “too”, and “two”. Why not the > same with Hebrew? And how many of the homographs (words spelled the same > way) were not homonyms because they had different pronunciations? > >> >> regards, >> >> fred burlingame >> > > As for the Masoretic points, I don’t use them, and haven’t for years. They > are not canon, not original, represent a pronunciation tradition at a time a > millennium after Hebrew ceased to be spoken as the primary language of a > people, so I don’t have them on the screen when I read the text. > > Karl W. Randolph. > > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
