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

Oldest Hebrew Script is Found

Expand Messages
  • Christopher Conlan
    Coming from the BBC, where I believe the date is still October 30th. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7700037.stm Christopher Conlan Washington, D.C.
    Message 1 of 21 , Oct 30, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Coming from the BBC, where I believe the date is still October 30th.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7700037.stm

      Christopher Conlan
      Washington, D.C.




      ________________________________
      From: Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@...>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, 30 October, 2008 11:50:02
      Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Proto-Canaanite Hebrew Ostracon from Khirbet Qeiyafah


      I don't think Cross labeled any scripts "Canaanite." Maybe he put the prefix on so that it wouldn't be confused with the language subfamily.

      ("Proto-Sinaitic" got the prefix because the form of Nabatean found throughout the Peninsula -- inscriptions collected by de Vogue' IIRC -- was already called "Sinaitic.") 

      By the time we find people talking about such things, a distinctive script for each polity was a matter of local pride -- hence the dozens of different-looking, basically identical Middle Aramaic scripts. When more 2nd-millennium inscriptions turn up, we'll have a better idea of how widespread any one set of letterforms may have been.
      --
      Peter T. Daniels grammatim@verizon. net

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@.... dk>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 11:34:41 AM
      Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Proto-Canaanite Hebrew Ostracon from Khirbet Qeiyafah

      Dear Peter,

      Thank for the clarification. But what is -- according to Cross "Canaanite"?
      Is he mixing up the discussion about ethnicity and language (I haven't quite forgotten your lecture last year about Canaanite!)? And how does an alphabet relate to a language?

      Niels Peter Lemche

      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE- 2@yahoogroups. com] På vegne af Peter T. Daniels
      Sendt: den 30 oktober 2008 16:30
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
      Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] Proto-Canaanite Hebrew Ostracon from Khirbet Qeiyafah

      "Proto-Canaanite" is what Cross calls all the stuff between Proto-Sinaitic and Phoenician (arrowheads, mostly).

      I suspect they haven't released photos of the ostracon because whoever is editing it isn't ready to let it go public.





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Brian Colless
      ... Right, thanks for that. I have their headlines on show on my Firefox all the time, but it reads: Pottery shard holds key to old ... I also have all the
      Message 2 of 21 , Oct 30, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7700037.stm


        Right, thanks for that. I have their headlines on show on my Firefox
        all the time, but it reads: "Pottery shard holds key to old ..."

        I also have all the photos that Yitzhak Sapir alerted us to (with a
        hairy hand putting its greasy fingers on the text, obliterating much
        of it).
        I have not got my bearings yet. There are lines marked on the
        ostracon, I think, but do they form rows or columns?
        Is the Aleph in the corner in the stance A or > or V?
        It is not an abagadary, apparently running 'A B T `ayin (circle with
        dot) ....
        Is the E (h) the definite article? Is its stance E or |_|_|
        (reflecting its origin as a person with upraised arms)?

        Some quotes from the BBC article:
        > deciphered some words, including judge, slave and king. <
        *This truly puts it in the time of 1-2 Samuel/Kings?

        *So we have sh-p-t.
        To the right of the A in the corner I can see a Tet (cross inside
        circle; +-o in the Bronze Age).
        If that is part of the word Sh-P-T., then I can see that the 'A is in
        the top left corner of the text, on its side, and that is where the
        text begins, and the Sh is like S not W in its stance. But that puts
        my supposed E in an inverted position (person standing on hands, which
        is certainly found at the pictorial stage of the proto-alphabet and
        the WS syllabary, as on Sinai 358 mentioned below).

        > Yosef Garfinkel identified it as Hebrew because of a three-letter
        verb meaning "to do" which he said was only used in Hebrew. "That
        leads us to believe that this is Hebrew, and that this is the oldest
        Hebrew inscription that has been found,"<

        Yes, this is `sh (Hebrew) versus p`l (Phoenician).

        Genesis 2:2 has God finishing (wykl) his work (ml`ktw) that he had
        made/done (`´s h).

        Contrast Sinai 358 (my reading of it, of course; it does not say 'El
        `olam):
        's p`l malkth Asa has done his work (meaning he has died; his
        gravestone is outside the mine).
        <http://cryptcracker.blogspot.com/2007/07/death-of-asa-asa-semitic-smith-was.html
        >

        But on text D from Gubla/Byblos, following Mendenhall's values for the
        syllabograms:
        'i li la ti `a shu ya la nu "our allies have made (ti`ashu) a covenant
        (my interpretation).

        And Old South Arabic has both `sy/`s' and f`l.

        > the Israelites were not the only ones using proto-Canaanite
        characters, therefore making it difficult to prove it was Hebrew and
        not a related tongue spoken in the area at the time.<



        On 31/10/2008, at 6:07 AM, Christopher Conlan wrote:

        > Coming from the BBC, where I believe the date is still October 30th.
        >
        > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7700037.stm
        >
        > Christopher Conlan
        > Washington, D.C.
        >
        >
        > *An impressive address. My daughter Laurel lives there as the wife
        > of the Finnish ambassador; she is leading the team that is
        > retrofitting Washington_to make the capital of the world energy
        > efficient.
        >

        >
        Brian Colless, Massey U, NZ
        _______________________________
        > From: Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@...>
        > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, 30 October, 2008 11:50:02
        > Subject: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Proto-Canaanite Hebrew Ostracon from
        > Khirbet Qeiyafah
        >
        > I don't think Cross labeled any scripts "Canaanite." Maybe he put
        > the prefix on so that it wouldn't be confused with the language
        > subfamily.
        >
        > ("Proto-Sinaitic" got the prefix because the form of Nabatean found
        > throughout the Peninsula -- inscriptions collected by de Vogue' IIRC
        > -- was already called "Sinaitic.")
        >
        > By the time we find people talking about such things, a distinctive
        > script for each polity was a matter of local pride -- hence the
        > dozens of different-looking, basically identical Middle Aramaic
        > scripts. When more 2nd-millennium inscriptions turn up, we'll have a
        > better idea of how widespread any one set of letterforms may have
        > been.
        > --
        > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@verizon. net
        >
        > ----- Original Message ----
        > From: Niels Peter Lemche <npl@.... dk>
        > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
        > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 11:34:41 AM
        > Subject: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Proto-Canaanite Hebrew Ostracon from
        > Khirbet Qeiyafah
        >
        > Dear Peter,
        >
        > Thank for the clarification. But what is -- according to Cross
        > "Canaanite"?
        > Is he mixing up the discussion about ethnicity and language (I
        > haven't quite forgotten your lecture last year about Canaanite!)?
        > And how does an alphabet relate to a language?
        >
        > Niels Peter Lemche
        >
        > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-- ---
        > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com [mailto:ANE- 2@yahoogroups. com] På
        > vegne af Peter T. Daniels
        > Sendt: den 30 oktober 2008 16:30
        > Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups. com
        > Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] Proto-Canaanite Hebrew Ostracon from Khirbet
        > Qeiyafah
        >
        > "Proto-Canaanite" is what Cross calls all the stuff between Proto-
        > Sinaitic and Phoenician (arrowheads, mostly).
        >
        > I suspect they haven't released photos of the ostracon because
        > whoever is editing it isn't ready to let it go public.
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Yitzhak Sapir
        ... What you read as a B, Haggai Misgav reads a Lamed whose top has been cut off. This makes for the aleph-lamed, taw-ayin of אל תעש ( Don t do. )
        Message 3 of 21 , Oct 30, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Brian Colless wrote:

          > It is not an abagadary, apparently running 'A B T `ayin (circle with
          > dot) ....
          > Is the E (h) the definite article? Is its stance E or |_|_|
          > (reflecting its origin as a person with upraised arms)?

          What you read as a B, Haggai Misgav reads a Lamed whose top has
          been cut off. This makes for the aleph-lamed, taw-ayin of אל תעש ("Don't
          do.")

          Yitzhak Sapir
        • Brian Colless
          ... been cut off. This makes for the aleph-lamed, taw-ayin of אל תעש ( Don t do. )
          Message 4 of 21 , Oct 31, 2008
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Yitzhak Sapir said:
            >What you read as a B, Haggai Misgav reads a Lamed whose top has
            been cut off. This makes for the aleph-lamed, taw-ayin of אל תעש
            ("Don't
            do.") <

            On 'A L T ` ´S as "Do not do"
            What have we here? A copy of the Ten Commandments? Or a new version?
            "Do not make [a pesel]"

            Yes, I had said the L was B, but an example of B is probably found
            further along on the first line; I have been considering it as E (h).
            The B as a square or simply three sides of a square is attested, but
            this sign is more rounded.

            That form (a semi-circle) is the shape of L on the El-Khadr arrowheads;
            on the unprovenanced Grossman cylinder seal, in the name Sh B L ;
            on the Gezer jars, though also with with a long stem;
            but not on the Izbet Sarta ostracon.

            > a Lamed whose top has been cut off <
            What I have said makes this supposition unnecessary; but the `ayin
            (circle with dot) might have lost its bottom, sorry, top, through a
            breakage, and the same could apply to the L.

            So, the one standing out on line 3 might be L, or else G or P.

            But P is what I see on line 2, preceding the Tet, with a Sh/S like the
            one you show on line 1.
            I am fairly sure that the sequence is Sh P Tt ($pt.) there, 'judge',
            not MMTt.

            If we really have the sequence 'A L it could be "not", but the first
            choice must always be "El/God", and 'LT would be "Elat/Goddess" =
            Asherah)"! Hence "The Goddess has made ... " or "The Goddess
            `Ash[tart] (Astarte)". Oh, those naughty Israelites!

            But I will be very disappointed if this sherd merely contains a list
            of names, unless they include the king's name!

            Right, then, I will not have much more to say, until we get a clear
            photograph, showing all of the 4 dozen letters on the sherd, with no
            disembodied hand crawling over it (shades of EA Poe).

            Brian Colless
            Massey U, NZ

            On 31/10/2008, at 7:31 PM, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

            > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Brian Colless wrote:
            >
            > > It is not an abagadary, apparently running 'A B T `ayin (circle with
            > > dot) ....
            > > Is the E (h) the definite article? Is its stance E or |_|_|
            > > (reflecting its origin as a person with upraised arms)?
            >
            > What you read as a B, Haggai Misgav reads a Lamed whose top has
            > been cut off. This makes for the aleph-lamed, taw-ayin of אל תעש
            > ("Don't
            > do.")
            >
            > Yitzhak Sapir
            >
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Yitzhak Sapir
            ... Dear Brian, I did not mean to second guess Haggai Misgav. He is the one who has the qualifications to read this inscription as well as the necessary
            Message 5 of 21 , Nov 1, 2008
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Brian Colless wrote:
              > Yitzhak Sapir said:
              > >What you read as a B, Haggai Misgav reads a Lamed whose top has
              > been cut off. This makes for the aleph-lamed, taw-ayin of אל תעש
              > ("Don't
              > do.") <
              >
              > On 'A L T ` ´S as "Do not do"
              > What have we here? A copy of the Ten Commandments? Or a new version?
              > "Do not make [a pesel]"

              Dear Brian,

              I did not mean to second guess Haggai Misgav. He is the one who has the
              qualifications to read this inscription as well as the necessary photographs,
              and at this point, apparently, this is not even sufficient for trying
              to read more
              than a handful of words. Those letters there on the second line may be the
              ones Haggai Misgav reads as "judge" -- I don't know where the word "judge"
              appears. I feel that the Sin on the first line has only two < marks, whereas
              the ones I identified as Mem on the second line have three or four (and the
              second has them going >). I did this because I realized that the words
              "Don't do" are legible on the photo, and also because someone asked how
              the Proto-Canaanite forms are substantiated in the photo. Again, I did not
              mean to second-guess Haggai Misgav in his reading and if he, with all the
              information he has available is not willing to go much further, we shouldn't
              either.

              Yitzhak Sapir
            • victor avigdor hurowitz
              Yitzhaq, In the versions of the Ten Commandments I know, the negative is Lo and not Al. Victor Hurowitz BGU ... Dear Brian, I did not mean to second guess
              Message 6 of 21 , Nov 1, 2008
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Yitzhaq,
                In the versions of the Ten Commandments I know, the negative is Lo and not
                Al.
                Victor Hurowitz
                BGU



                On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

                > On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Brian Colless wrote:
                > Yitzhak Sapir said:
                > >What you read as a B, Haggai Misgav reads a Lamed whose top has
                > been cut off. This makes for the aleph-lamed, taw-ayin of אל תעש
                > ("Don't
                > do.") <
                >
                > On 'A L T ` ´S as "Do not do"
                > What have we here? A copy of the Ten Commandments? Or a new version?
                > "Do not make [a pesel]"

                Dear Brian,

                I did not mean to second guess Haggai Misgav. He is the one who has the
                qualifications to read this inscription as well as the necessary photographs,
                and at this point, apparently, this is not even sufficient for trying
                to read more
                than a handful of words. Those letters there on the second line may be the
                ones Haggai Misgav reads as "judge" -- I don't know where the word "judge"
                appears. I feel that the Sin on the first line has only two < marks, whereas
                the ones I identified as Mem on the second line have three or four (and the
                second has them going >). I did this because I realized that the words
                "Don't do" are legible on the photo, and also because someone asked how
                the Proto-Canaanite forms are substantiated in the photo. Again, I did not
                mean to second-guess Haggai Misgav in his reading and if he, with all the
                information he has available is not willing to go much further, we shouldn't
                either.

                Yitzhak Sapir
              • Ariel L. Szczupak
                ... Exactly. The photographs I ve seen on the web are FAR from a quality that would allow any serious interpretation. Especially if significant data is
                Message 7 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 02:14 AM 11/2/2008, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

                  >On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Brian Colless wrote:
                  > > Yitzhak Sapir said:
                  > > >What you read as a B, Haggai Misgav reads a Lamed whose top has
                  > > been cut off. This makes for the aleph-lamed, taw-ayin of אל תעש
                  > > ("Don't
                  > > do.") <
                  > >
                  > > On 'A L T ` ´S as "Do not do"
                  > > What have we here? A copy of the Ten Commandments? Or a new version?
                  > > "Do not make [a pesel]"
                  >
                  >Dear Brian,
                  >
                  >I did not mean to second guess Haggai Misgav. He is the one who has the
                  >qualifications to read this inscription as well as the necessary photographs,
                  >and at this point, apparently, this is not even sufficient for trying
                  >to read more than a handful of words.

                  Exactly. The photographs I've seen on the web are FAR from a quality
                  that would allow any serious interpretation. Especially if
                  significant data is revealed only with the use of a special
                  (spectrographic?) camera. As much as I understand the urge to try and
                  "read" the inscription from the web photos, feeling the itch myself
                  (a very late instance of proto script coupled with a very early
                  instance of BH forms, in a dateable context - amazing!), these photos
                  are illustrative, period.

                  And a thought, given the condition of the ostracon - the usual
                  practices of sherd cleaning in digs (hard bristled brushes, water)
                  may have to be re-thought, though systematic dry cleaning with soft
                  brushes is somewhat of a logistical nightmare considering the number
                  of sherds dug out each day.



                  Ariel.

                  [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

                  ---
                  Ariel L. Szczupak
                  AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
                  POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
                  Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
                  ane.als@...
                  ---
                  http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
                  http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
                • Ariel L. Szczupak
                  ... There s an al taas in the Abraham/Isaac story somewhere and several in later books [don t have refs at hand] ... Ariel. [100% bona fide dilettante ...
                  Message 8 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 08:09 AM 11/2/2008, victor avigdor hurowitz wrote:
                    >Yitzhaq,
                    >In the versions of the Ten Commandments I know, the negative is Lo and not
                    >Al.

                    There's an "al taas" in the Abraham/Isaac story somewhere and several
                    in later books [don't have refs at hand]

                    >Victor Hurowitz
                    >BGU
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
                    >
                    > > On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Brian Colless wrote:
                    > > Yitzhak Sapir said:
                    > > >What you read as a B, Haggai Misgav reads a Lamed whose top has
                    > > been cut off. This makes for the aleph-lamed, taw-ayin of אל תעש
                    > > ("Don't
                    > > do.") <
                    > >
                    > > On 'A L T ` ´S as "Do not do"
                    > > What have we here? A copy of the Ten Commandments? Or a new version?
                    > > "Do not make [a pesel]"
                    >
                    >Dear Brian,
                    >
                    >I did not mean to second guess Haggai Misgav. He is the one who has the
                    >qualifications to read this inscription as well as the necessary photographs,
                    >and at this point, apparently, this is not even sufficient for trying
                    >to read more
                    >than a handful of words. Those letters there on the second line may be the
                    >ones Haggai Misgav reads as "judge" -- I don't know where the word "judge"
                    >appears. I feel that the Sin on the first line has only two < marks, whereas
                    >the ones I identified as Mem on the second line have three or four (and the
                    >second has them going >). I did this because I realized that the words
                    >"Don't do" are legible on the photo, and also because someone asked how
                    >the Proto-Canaanite forms are substantiated in the photo. Again, I did not
                    >mean to second-guess Haggai Misgav in his reading and if he, with all the
                    >information he has available is not willing to go much further, we shouldn't
                    >either.
                    >
                    >Yitzhak Sapir
                    >
                    >
                    >------------------------------------
                    >
                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    Ariel.

                    [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

                    ---
                    Ariel L. Szczupak
                    AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
                    POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
                    Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
                    ane.als@...
                    ---
                    http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
                    http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
                  • victor
                    There may be some ‘al ta`aseh but NOT in the Decalogue! Genesis 22:12 which you refer to is not in the Ten Commandments. BTW, a very quick look at Mandelkern
                    Message 9 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      There may be some ‘al ta`aseh but NOT in the Decalogue! Genesis 22:12 which you refer to is not in the Ten Commandments.

                      BTW, a very quick look at Mandelkern gives me only two more cases: al ta`asu et hannebalah hazot in Judges 19:23 and al ta`aseh et hannebalah hazot in II Sam 13:12. Interesting! (although I’m checking very quickly)

                      Victor Hurowitz

                      BGU

                      _____

                      From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ariel L. Szczupak
                      Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 9:38 AM
                      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S



                      At 08:09 AM 11/2/2008, victor avigdor hurowitz wrote:
                      >Yitzhaq,
                      >In the versions of the Ten Commandments I know, the negative is Lo and not
                      >Al.

                      There's an "al taas" in the Abraham/Isaac story somewhere and several
                      in later books [don't have refs at hand]

                      >Victor Hurowitz
                      >BGU
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
                      >
                      > > On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Brian Colless wrote:
                      > > Yitzhak Sapir said:
                      > > >What you read as a B, Haggai Misgav reads a Lamed whose top has
                      > > been cut off. This makes for the aleph-lamed, taw-ayin of אל תעש
                      > > ("Don't
                      > > do.") <
                      > >
                      > > On 'A L T ` ´S as "Do not do"
                      > > What have we here? A copy of the Ten Commandments? Or a new version?
                      > > "Do not make [a pesel]"
                      >
                      >Dear Brian,
                      >
                      >I did not mean to second guess Haggai Misgav. He is the one who has the
                      >qualifications to read this inscription as well as the necessary photographs,
                      >and at this point, apparently, this is not even sufficient for trying
                      >to read more
                      >than a handful of words. Those letters there on the second line may be the
                      >ones Haggai Misgav reads as "judge" -- I don't know where the word "judge"
                      >appears. I feel that the Sin on the first line has only two < marks, whereas
                      >the ones I identified as Mem on the second line have three or four (and the
                      >second has them going >). I did this because I realized that the words
                      >"Don't do" are legible on the photo, and also because someone asked how
                      >the Proto-Canaanite forms are substantiated in the photo. Again, I did not
                      >mean to second-guess Haggai Misgav in his reading and if he, with all the
                      >information he has available is not willing to go much further, we shouldn't
                      >either.
                      >
                      >Yitzhak Sapir
                      >
                      >
                      >------------------------------------
                      >
                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      Ariel.

                      [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

                      ---
                      Ariel L. Szczupak
                      AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
                      POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
                      Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
                      ane.als@gmail. <mailto:ane.als%40gmail.com> com
                      ---
                      http://yvetteszczup <http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/> akthomas.blogspot.com/
                      http://undiamantbru <http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/> t.blogspot.com/





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Ariel L. Szczupak
                      ... Of course not. We all know the decalogue is in the Jacob & ladder story, not the Abraham/Isaac one. [ :) ] ... For )L T($ I find also Jer 39:12, Jer
                      Message 10 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 09:49 AM 11/2/2008, victor wrote:

                        >There may be some ‘al ta`aseh but NOT in the Decalogue! Genesis
                        >22:12 which you refer to is not in the Ten Commandments.

                        Of course not. We all know the decalogue is in the Jacob & ladder
                        story, not the Abraham/Isaac one. [ :) ]


                        >BTW, a very quick look at Mandelkern gives me only two more cases:
                        >al ta`asu et hannebalah hazot in Judges 19:23 and al ta`aseh et
                        >hannebalah hazot in II Sam 13:12. Interesting! (although I’m
                        >checking very quickly)

                        For ")L T($" I find also Jer 39:12, Jer 40:16, Job 13:20

                        For ")L T($W" I find also Gen 19:8, Jer 5:10

                        Also ")L Y($W" at Ex 36:6

                        And maybe the fancy camera will reveal it's actually ")L T($N" ...



                        Ariel.

                        [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

                        ---
                        Ariel L. Szczupak
                        AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
                        POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
                        Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
                        ane.als@...
                        ---
                        http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
                        http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
                      • Niels Peter Lemche
                        Ariel, Either you are pulling our legs or you have to do some reading of the Hebrew Bible. In the first case nothing to say, in the last case the Decalogue is
                        Message 11 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ariel,
                          Either you are pulling our legs or you have to do some reading of the Hebrew Bible. In the first case nothing to say, in the last case the Decalogue is in Exod 21 and Dtn 5.

                          Shouldn't be necessary to say this

                          Niels Peter Lemche

                          -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                          Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Ariel L. Szczupak
                          Sendt: den 2 november 2008 12:28
                          Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                          Emne: RE: [ANE-2] Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S

                          At 09:49 AM 11/2/2008, victor wrote:

                          >There may be some ‘al ta`aseh but NOT in the Decalogue! Genesis
                          >22:12 which you refer to is not in the Ten Commandments.

                          Of course not. We all know the decalogue is in the Jacob & ladder
                          story, not the Abraham/Isaac one. [ :) ]


                          >BTW, a very quick look at Mandelkern gives me only two more cases:
                          >al ta`asu et hannebalah hazot in Judges 19:23 and al ta`aseh et
                          >hannebalah hazot in II Sam 13:12. Interesting! (although I’m
                          >checking very quickly)
                        • victor
                          I think Ariel is indeed joking after I called him on his first inaccuracy. Victor Hurowitz BGU _____ From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com]
                          Message 12 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I think Ariel is indeed joking after I called him on his first inaccuracy.

                            Victor Hurowitz

                            BGU



                            _____

                            From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Niels Peter Lemche
                            Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 1:38 PM
                            To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: SV: [ANE-2] Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S



                            Ariel,
                            Either you are pulling our legs or you have to do some reading of the Hebrew Bible. In the first case nothing to say, in the last case the Decalogue is in Exod 21 and Dtn 5.

                            Shouldn't be necessary to say this

                            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 Ariel L. Szczupak
                            Sendt: den 2 november 2008 12:28
                            Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups. <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> com
                            Emne: RE: [ANE-2] Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S

                            At 09:49 AM 11/2/2008, victor wrote:

                            >There may be some ‘al ta`aseh but NOT in the Decalogue! Genesis
                            >22:12 which you refer to is not in the Ten Commandments.

                            Of course not. We all know the decalogue is in the Jacob & ladder
                            story, not the Abraham/Isaac one. [ :) ]


                            >BTW, a very quick look at Mandelkern gives me only two more cases:
                            >al ta`asu et hannebalah hazot in Judges 19:23 and al ta`aseh et
                            >hannebalah hazot in II Sam 13:12. Interesting! (although I’m
                            >checking very quickly)





                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Niels Peter Lemche
                            Dear Victor Let s pray for that! Niels Peter Lemche ... Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af victor Sendt: den 2 november
                            Message 13 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Victor

                              Let's pray for that!

                              Niels Peter Lemche

                              -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                              Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af victor
                              Sendt: den 2 november 2008 12:41
                              Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                              Emne: RE: [ANE-2] Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S

                              I think Ariel is indeed joking after I called him on his first inaccuracy.

                              Victor Hurowitz

                              BGU
                            • Ariel L. Szczupak
                              ... I did put a smiley there ... More in general, everyone who has gone through the Israeli education system, even in its present sorry state, would know that
                              Message 14 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 01:38 PM 11/2/2008, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

                                >Ariel,
                                >Either you are pulling our legs or you have to do some reading of
                                >the Hebrew Bible. In the first case nothing to say, in the last case
                                >the Decalogue is in Exod 21 and Dtn 5.
                                >
                                >Shouldn't be necessary to say this

                                I did put a smiley there ...

                                More in general, everyone who has gone through the Israeli education
                                system, even in its present sorry state, would know that the
                                prohibitive commandments start with "L)" (/lo/), not with ")L" (/al/).

                                As for people using translations, it's always a good idea to check
                                the Strong numbers of the actual words used in specific passages (and
                                there are plenty of web sites which provide those). That would reduce
                                confusion between, e.g., ")L" (Strong 408) and "L)" (Strong 3808).

                                But I do have to accept blame for not adding a smiley to my last
                                sentence in that message, ")L T($N" referring to the well known
                                addiction of Iron Age youth, smoking olive pits in bongs. :) <--- smiley.


                                >Niels Peter Lemche
                                >
                                >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                >Fra: <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                >[mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] PÃ¥ vegne af Ariel L. Szczupak
                                >Sendt: den 2 november 2008 12:28
                                >Til: <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                >Emne: RE: [ANE-2] Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S
                                >
                                >At 09:49 AM 11/2/2008, victor wrote:
                                >
                                > >There may be some ‘al ta`aseh but NOT in the Decalologue! Genesis
                                > >22:12 which you refer to is not in the Ten Commandments.
                                >
                                >Of course not. We all know the decalogue is in the Jacob & ladder
                                >story, not the Abraham/Isaac one. [ :) ]
                                >
                                >
                                > >BTW, a very quick look at Mandelkern gives me only two more cases:
                                > >al ta`asu et hannebalah hazot in Judges 19:23 and al ta`aseh et
                                > >hannebalah hazot in II Sam 13:12. Interesting! (although I’m
                                > >checking very quickly)
                                >
                                >

                                Ariel.

                                [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

                                ---
                                Ariel L. Szczupak
                                AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
                                POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
                                Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
                                ane.als@...
                                ---
                                http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
                                http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
                              • victor
                                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
                                Message 15 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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



                                  _____

                                  From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ariel L. Szczupak
                                  Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 2:01 PM
                                  To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: SV: [ANE-2] Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S



                                  At 01:38 PM 11/2/2008, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

                                  >Ariel,
                                  >Either you are pulling our legs or you have to do some reading of
                                  >the Hebrew Bible. In the first case nothing to say, in the last case
                                  >the Decalogue is in Exod 21 and Dtn 5.
                                  >
                                  >Shouldn't be necessary to say this

                                  I did put a smiley there ...

                                  More in general, everyone who has gone through the Israeli education
                                  system, even in its present sorry state, would know that the
                                  prohibitive commandments start with "L)" (/lo/), not with ")L" (/al/).

                                  As for people using translations, it's always a good idea to check
                                  the Strong numbers of the actual words used in specific passages (and
                                  there are plenty of web sites which provide those). That would reduce
                                  confusion between, e.g., ")L" (Strong 408) and "L)" (Strong 3808).

                                  But I do have to accept blame for not adding a smiley to my last
                                  sentence in that message, ")L T($N" referring to the well known
                                  addiction of Iron Age youth, smoking olive pits in bongs. :) <--- smiley.

                                  >Niels Peter Lemche
                                  >
                                  >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                  >Fra: <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>ANE-2@yahoogroups. <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> com
                                  >[mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups. <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> com] PÃ¥ vegne af Ariel L. Szczupak
                                  >Sendt: den 2 november 2008 12:28
                                  >Til: <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>ANE-2@yahoogroups. <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> com
                                  >Emne: RE: [ANE-2] Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S
                                  >
                                  >At 09:49 AM 11/2/2008, victor wrote:
                                  >
                                  > >There may be some ‘al ta`aseh but NOT in the Decalologue! Genesis
                                  > >22:12 which you refer to is not in the Ten Commandments.
                                  >
                                  >Of course not. We all know the decalogue is in the Jacob & ladder
                                  >story, not the Abraham/Isaac one. [ :) ]
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > >BTW, a very quick look at Mandelkern gives me only two more cases:
                                  > >al ta`asu et hannebalah hazot in Judges 19:23 and al ta`aseh et
                                  > >hannebalah hazot in II Sam 13:12. Interesting! (although I’m
                                  > >checking very quickly)
                                  >
                                  >

                                  Ariel.

                                  [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

                                  ---
                                  Ariel L. Szczupak
                                  AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
                                  POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
                                  Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
                                  ane.als@gmail. <mailto:ane.als%40gmail.com> com
                                  ---
                                  http://yvetteszczup <http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/> akthomas.blogspot.com/
                                  http://undiamantbru <http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/> t.blogspot.com/





                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Niels Peter Lemche
                                  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
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af victor
                                    Sendt: den 2 november 2008 13:10
                                    Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.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
                                  • victor
                                    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
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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]
                                    • Brian Colless
                                      Victor That is exactly why I was careful to say a new version And now the discussion has started raging over lo (thou shalt not) and al (which I had
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Victor
                                        That is exactly why I was careful to say "a new version"

                                        And now the discussion has started raging over lo' (thou shalt not)
                                        and 'al (which I had thought implied Please do not or Kindly refrain
                                        from in classical usage).

                                        I will respond to Yitzhak Sapir tomorrow.

                                        Brian
                                        1.33 am on Monday 3rd of Novemeber, I think; my luakh says 5 Kheshvan
                                        5769

                                        On 2/11/2008, at 7:09 PM, victor avigdor hurowitz wrote:

                                        > Yitzhaq,
                                        > In the versions of the Ten Commandments I know, the negative is Lo
                                        > and not
                                        > Al.
                                        > Victor Hurowitz
                                        > BGU
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
                                        >
                                        >> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Brian Colless wrote:
                                        >> Yitzhak Sapir said:
                                        >>> What you read as a B, Haggai Misgav reads a Lamed whose top has
                                        >> been cut off. This makes for the aleph-lamed, taw-ayin of אל תעש
                                        >> ("Don't
                                        >> do.") <
                                        >>
                                        >> On 'A L T ` ´S as "Do not do"
                                        >> What have we here? A copy of the Ten Commandments? Or a new version?
                                        >> "Do not make [a pesel]"
                                        >
                                        > Dear Brian,
                                        >
                                        > I did not mean to second guess Haggai Misgav. He is the one who has
                                        > the
                                        > qualifications to read this inscription as well as the necessary
                                        > photographs,
                                        > and at this point, apparently, this is not even sufficient for trying
                                        > to read more
                                        > than a handful of words. Those letters there on the second line may
                                        > be the
                                        > ones Haggai Misgav reads as "judge" -- I don't know where the word
                                        > "judge"
                                        > appears. I feel that the Sin on the first line has only two <
                                        > marks, whereas
                                        > the ones I identified as Mem on the second line have three or four
                                        > (and the
                                        > second has them going >). I did this because I realized that the
                                        > words
                                        > "Don't do" are legible on the photo, and also because someone asked
                                        > how
                                        > the Proto-Canaanite forms are substantiated in the photo. Again, I
                                        > did not
                                        > mean to second-guess Haggai Misgav in his reading and if he, with
                                        > all the
                                        > information he has available is not willing to go much further, we
                                        > shouldn't
                                        > either.
                                        >
                                        > Yitzhak Sapir
                                        >
                                        >
                                      • Niels Peter Lemche
                                        I am quite sure that the Germans were able to get around both cases. The first might be secondary in comparison to the one opening the sentence, the second
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I am quite sure that the Germans were able to get around both cases. The first might be secondary in comparison to the one opening the sentence, the second might not necessarily be understood as categorical.

                                          I checked a modern translation:

                                          Revised English Bible: You must not spread a baseless rumour, nor make common cause with a wicked man ... 7: Avoid all lies, and do not cause the death of ...

                                          V. 8 opens with perhaps a better example.

                                          Would have nothing against a modern study of negations. In my time, if we failed to make the distinction between 'al and lo' at the examination, we were dead meat!

                                          Niels Peter Lemche


                                          -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                                          Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af victor
                                          Sendt: den 2 november 2008 13:27
                                          Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                          Emne: RE: SV: [ANE-2] Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S

                                          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



                                          _____
                                        • Andrés Piquer Otero
                                          Personally I would reconsider the traditional clause-level theories from a discourse analysis perspective: the two instances of the Decalogues could be
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Personally I would reconsider the traditional clause-level theories from
                                            a discourse analysis perspective: the two instances of the Decalogues
                                            could be analyzed not as Hortative Discourse (command-driven) but as
                                            Predictive Discourse (rendering of prospective-future events). That
                                            would fit with a 2-mode division (indicative vs. injunctive) akin to
                                            proposals applied to the PC in Ugaritic. The Decalogues are not a piece
                                            of "injunctive" discourse, but a text in the "indicative mode". Thus,
                                            interpretation of lo' + "imperfect" as a categorical demand vs. the
                                            default negative command with 'al + jussive is to be contextualized in
                                            the form and function of the whole text. These two particular instances
                                            of juridical-function discourse use indicative (predictive discourse),
                                            as opposed to injunctive. Perhaps that's indeed connected to the
                                            "categorical" force of legal language (as attested in the tense use in
                                            multiple languages, old and modern), but it is created by the context
                                            usage in a text-type, not by the existence of yet another category of
                                            single-sentence construction (we already see enough of those in
                                            classical Hebrew grammars). In the Decalogues, it is remarkable that the
                                            few positive commands are problematic: kabbed supports an infinitive
                                            reading besides the imp. one and zakor is vocalized as infinitive, so
                                            also in the positive commands the imperative form (injunctive mode)
                                            could be missing. Further research could focus on this context-based
                                            line in other instances of legal texts presented from injuctive vs.
                                            indicative modes.

                                            Andrés Piquer Otero



                                            Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
                                            >
                                            > 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
                                            >
                                            > -----
                                            >
                                          • Ariel L. Szczupak
                                            ... I was referring to the (tiny) knowledge of the Bible and of Biblical Hebrew. But the decalogue is a memorable piece of literature, partly because of its
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                                            View Source
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              At 02:10 PM 11/2/2008, victor wrote:

                                              >I must take issue with Ariel’s comment here about the Israeli
                                              >school system and the average Israeli’s knowledge of Hebrew.

                                              I was referring to the (tiny) knowledge of the Bible and of Biblical
                                              Hebrew. But the decalogue is a memorable piece of literature, partly
                                              because of its phrasing. Most Israelis would know, remember, that the
                                              bible says "lo tirtsah" (and not "al tirtsah") - that's my impression
                                              and personal experience. Maybe I'm wrong and they wouldn't know even that :(



                                              Ariel.

                                              [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

                                              ---
                                              Ariel L. Szczupak
                                              AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
                                              POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
                                              Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
                                              ane.als@...
                                              ---
                                              http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
                                              http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.