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

Re: [ANE-2] Qeiyafa inscription 'ALT`S

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
    • 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 2 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
      • 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 3 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
        • 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 4 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
          • 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 5 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
            • 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 6 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
              • 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 7 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                • 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 8 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                  • 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 9 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                    • 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 10 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                      • 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 11 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                        • 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 12 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                          • 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 13 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                            • 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 14 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                              • 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.