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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
      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 2 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
        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 3 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
          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 4 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
            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 5 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
              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 6 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                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 7 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                  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 8 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                    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 9 of 21 , Nov 2, 2008
                      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.