The only thing that sticks out to me, Pere, is that the Exodus XOT"N is a
construct and the 1 Sam XFTFN is an absolute. Other than that I am sure one
of the real Hebrew scholars we are lucky enough to have on here will set us
straight.
Y'know, this forum has been magnificent for at least 10 years that I have
been on board and I don't remember if I have expressed my thanks and
appreciation to the owner(s) and moderators for one of the most beneficial
lists online.
I know Jim has been like a kid in a candy store.
To you guys and gals in the background, תודה רבה
Jack
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Pere Porta" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:06 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Any reason?
Hi, list.
We have in Ex 18:1 noun XOT"N, father-in-law.
We have in 1Sa 18:18 XFTFN, son-in-law or daughter's husband.
It seems clear that both nouns are related: their consonants are the same
and appear in the same order....
I'm wondering whether there is a good reason for this:
Pattern of XOT"N is that of Qal Participle while pattern of XFTFN is that
of
many Hebrew nouns (such as DFBFR, word (Gn 18:14) or ZFKFR, male in Gn
1:27).
Would the reverse equally have been possible?
Namely, that XOT"N would mean daughter's husband and XFTFN would mean
father-in-law...
Is there any reason for things having gone the way they have gone and not
the reverse way?
Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
