karl, i personally see nothing in that sentence which indicates that $KN="dwell" does not fit the context, or that $KK="calm down" makes more sense.
moreover, if the root were $KK then i imagine the correct -WN form would be Y$KKWN and not Y$KWN as written. furthermore, it will be NECESSARILY third plural, which i suspect is not what you had in mind. >>> If it adds nothing to the meaning, then why do we find verses where there is a mixture—a verb with a “paragogic” nun and in the same verse a verb without? E.g. Genesis 3:3, Exodus 3:21, etc.? the -WN ending, within a canaanite context, has been debated by many researchers, including moran, niccacci, shulman, gentry, but without a clear conclusion. most opinions corroborate george's suggestions (obsolete form, volitive/subjunctive) and agree that the suffix indeed does not change the general meaning of the word. it may have had a minor grammatical or phonetical purpose which has escaped us today. i also agree with pere's observation that it mostly appears in KAL. let me add that paragogic -WN is most frequently the last word of a verse or a clause, and so usually not followed by a (grammatical) object. this may indicate that one of its roles may have been in creating a stress shift GOING BOTH WAYS and indicating END OF A CLAUSE. for example, in the verse you provided, ex 3:21, TLKW (milra) was changed to TLKWN (milel, as astutely dotted by masorah) at the end of a clause. the same observation is also consistent with gen 1-4 TMWTW (milel) changes to TMTWN (milra) at the end of the verse. in other places like gen 43:32 the subjunctive/volitive element seems more appropriate. nir cohen _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
