Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9147RE: SV: [ANE-2] Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S

Expand Messages
  • victor
    Nov 2 4:27 AM
      Nothing wrong with reverting back to old Alt if he has something new to say,
      or even old that’s right.

      I wouldn’t venture an opinion on what he says in this particular case
      because I don’t have his article in front of me, but is it is as you state
      it, it requires a small bit of modification. Look at Exodus 23:1 and 7 where
      al is used in negative commands which are certainly categorical. But in
      these cases the al is a secondary prohibition subsumed under a primary
      prohibition mentioned right before them which uses lo.

      Victor

      BGU



      _____

      From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      Niels Peter Lemche
      Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 2:17 PM
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S



      Hm, are we not back to the old division in biblical Hebrew between lo' &
      imperfect and 'al & jussiv? More to it than that? Modern Hebrew usage is
      probably of no consequence here.

      Back to old Alt (need a smiley here): lo' & imperfect a categorical demand,
      "thou shall not etc", 'al & jussiv less categorical: "Please, do not ..." I
      know that I am back in the Jurasic Park of biblical scholarship.

      Niels Peter Lemche

      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> com
      [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups. <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> com] På vegne af
      victor
      Sendt: den 2 november 2008 13:10
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups. <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> com
      Emne: RE: SV: [ANE-2] Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S

      I must take issue with Ariel's comment here about the Israeli school system
      and the average Israeli's knowledge of Hebrew. Many years ago I tacked a
      sign on an office computer reading "Lo tiga` bammahshev!" (Thou shalt not
      touch the computer!), rather than the expected "al tiga bammahshev", and
      wouldn't you know it if our department secretary didn't try to correct it.
      Obviously she is ignorant of the Ten Commandments. Fact of the matter is
      that prohibitive commands are not expressed with lo but with al. Ariel, do
      you tell your children "lo tesaheq barehov", or "al tesaheq barehov"?

      Victor Hurowitz

      BGU





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic