[Mesorah] another grammar question

[Danny Levy]

Indeed there appear to be different girsaos of Onkelos for l'meis in this
posuk.  An old Mikraos G'dolos I have published by Levin Epstein and the
Chumash Ha'amek Dovor both have "al mis" while others I looked at have
"l'mis".  From the meforshim it would seem that "al mis" (for a dead person)
would be more appropriate here.

Either way, WADR to R' Michael, I don't think that this can be used to prove
that the prefixes lo- and l'- have different meanings.  Throughout Tanach
the lamed prefix is used for both 'to' and 'for'.  To claim that they are
differentiated in Hebrew is a chiddush that requires considerably more
support than a single questionable girsoh in Onkelos.
Gut Voch,

Danny
2010/8/27 Poppers, Michael <MPoppers at kayescholer.com>

>   > I am puzzled by your message, R' Michael.  Onkelos translates lomeis
> in 5-14:1 as "al mis", exactly as he does for l'meis in 5-26:14. <
>
> The Miqraos G’dolos in my office translates “l’meis” as “l’mis,” not “al
> mis.”
>
>
>
> > My knowledge of Aramaic is not great but does that not mean "for a dead
> person"? <
>
> I would go with that as a translation for “al mis,” yes.  Quite different
> from “l’mis.”
>
>
>
> > To me it seems that Onkelos supports my answer that both l'meis and
> lomeis mean the same. <
>
> I look forward to a learned discussion of girsaos b’Onqelos J.
>
>
>
> A gut'n Shabbos/Shabbas Shalom
>
> and all the best from
>
> Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Danny Levy [mailto:danestlev at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 27, 2010 8:29 AM
> *To:* Poppers, Michael
>
> *Cc:* Michael Hamm; mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Mesorah] another grammar question
>
>
>
> I am puzzled by your message, R' Michael.  Onkelos translates lomeis in
> 5-14:1 as "al mis", exactly as he does for l'meis in 5-26:14.  My knowledge
> of Aramaic is not great but does that not mean "for a dead person"?  So why
> do you understand Onkelos to be distinguishing the two?  I note that he
> translates hameis as "miso", for example in 2-21:36 and 5-25:5.  To me it
> seems that Onkelos supports my answer that both l'meis and lomeis mean the
> same.
>
>
>
> I am less certain about my explanation that 'lo-' follows the same rules as
> 'vo-', as I have not found it it any sefer on grammar.  Can anyone else on
> the Mesorah list help with this one?
>
>
>
> Danny
>
> 2010/8/26 Poppers, Michael <MPoppers at kayescholer.com>
>
> WADR, R’Danny, cannot “lawmeis” in 5-14:1 mean something entirely
> differently than either “lameis” or “l’meis”?  Onqelos apparently thought
> so.  Good argument to answer R’Michael’s question the same way I did, but
> for a different reason J.  Thanks.
>
>
>
> *From:* mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org [mailto:
> mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org] *On Behalf Of *Danny Levy
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 3:36 PM
> *To:* Micha Berger
> *Cc:* Michael Hamm; mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Mesorah] another grammar question
>
>
>
> It is not poor dikduk - see D'varim 14:1. R' Michael is correct - it is an
> indefinite article and means the same as l'meis.
>
>
>
> As I understand it, just as vav hachibur can take a kamatz when the word is
> mil'eil and accented with a ta'am mafsik (see for example B'reshit 8:22), a
> prefix lamed can do the same, although such forms are rare.  Other examples
> include zeh lozeh and tzav lotzov kav lokov (Yeshaya 28:10).
>
>
>
> Danny Levy
>
>
>
>
>
> 2010/8/26 Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 02:08:47PM -0500, Michael Hamm wrote:
> : On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
> wrote:
> : > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:46:22AM -0500, Michael Hamm wrote:
> : > : Someone leining Ki Savo said (26:14) "v'lo nasati mimenu lames", with
> : > : an Ashkenazi kamatz (not a patach) under the lamed of "lames" instead
> : > : of the proper sh'va.
> : <snip>
> : > "Lameis" means "to the deceased", as opposed to the pasuq really
> talking
> : > about "to a deceased". No?
>
> : Does it?  With a kamatz?
>
> I think it does, as La- with a qamatz means that elsewhere. The fact that
> it's poor diqduq to boot... Well, "I throwing the ball" means something,
> despite the grammatical flaw.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
> micha at aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
> http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
> Fax: (270) 514-1507
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mesorah mailing list
> Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100828/1deb6ff8/attachment-0005.htm>