[Mesorah] She'ata / Sha'ata

[R. Rich Wolpoe]

RTK

«but I will say that my impression is that "lach" (when addressing a male or specifically when addressing Hashem) is influenced by Aramaic, »

So mah nafshach

why not say v'lach noeh l'hodos, 

Also 

Ki vach botochnu?

-------------------

It gets worse.  Hanau revised the nikkud.  Why did he leave THESE untouched?  What was he thinking?


Shalom and Regards, RRW

-----Original Message-----
From: T613K at aol.com
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:59:35 
To: <mesorah at aishdas.org>
Cc: <rabbi.rich.wolpoe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] She'ata / Sha'ata


 
In a message dated 2/21/2012, rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com writes:

Questions:

1. How do we explain

Ul'cha No'eh  L'hodos
Ki v'cha Botochnu

Vs.

Umee domeh Lach
Modeem  anachnu Lach

 
 
>>>>>
 
I'm really barely qualified to read, let alone to respond, to such an  
august language list but I will say that my impression is that "lach" (when  
addressing a male or specifically when addressing Hashem) is influenced by  
Aramaic, and that in fact a lot of Aramaic has crept into Hebrew, just as 
Hebrew  and Yiddish have crept into our frum English.  I'm saying this 
tentatively,  more as a question to the list than as an answer to your question.
 
I'm trying to remember whether we find this in Tehillim too -- which would  
predate Aramaic influence from post-exilic times -- although even back then 
 Hebrew does seem to have been somewhat influenced by surrounding Semitic  
languages.  Maybe others here recall whether we find this in Tehillim or  
elsewhere in Tanach, or do we find it only in later Rabbinic texts like the  
siddur?
 
 


--Toby Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good  hair


------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120221/4f6ef8cf/attachment-0006.htm>