Nir: On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > The verb $KK = “to abate” as in flood waters going down Genesis 8:1 or the king’s wrath going down Esther 7:10, so here in Job 15:28 cut off cities going down into ruin. Examples of Y$KWN from $KN are found in Judges 5:17 and Psalm 104:12. > > moreover, if the root were $KK then i imagine the correct -WN > form would be Y$KKWN and not Y$KWN as written. Look at Genesis 8:1. It’s fairly rare that an ayin doubled verb has a doubled consonant in Yiqtol conjugation. Yah it happens, but it’s fairly rare. > furthermore, it > will be NECESSARILY third plural, which i suspect is not what > you had in mind. > Yeah, third plural. > > >>> 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. > That’s what I suspect, that it has a subtle shift in emphasis rather than a major change in meaning, a shift so subtle that it often doesn’t show up in translation. > > 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. > It frequently is followed by a (grammatical) object, e.g. Genesis 18:28–32, 32:20, 43:32, etc. In fact, it seems that that’s the more common way it’s used in Biblical Hebrew. I don’t know about cognate languages. > > in other places like gen 43:32 the subjunctive/volitive element > seems more appropriate. > > nir cohen > > Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
