I'm aware that Accordance isn't responsible for all of the tagging of their texts, but came across ruah in Isaiah 57.16 being tagged (BHS) as ר֙וּחַ֙ (רוח) רוּחַ Noun comm masc acc. It's odd to have a masculine occurence of ruah, and even odder for it to be tagged as an 'acc.' Anyone have any insights into what is going on?
Posted 04 February 2016 - 11:08 PM
I felt sure I had seen something on this but could not find it - perhaps I was mistaken. As I was looking then I had a quick squiz at Acc. This from HALOT is all I can find on the point directly and not very helpful I'm afraid unless perhaps you can find the references.
Generally רוּח is fem.; only seldom is it masc., as in Ex 10:13.19 Nu 1131 Is 57:16 Jr 4:12 Ezk 27:26 Ps 51:12 78:39 Jb 4:15 8:2 20:3 41:8 Qoh 1:6 3:19; discussed by Albrecht ZAW 16 (1896) 42–44 and Michel Grundlegung 1:76: not able to find a reason for this shift in gender.
“רוּחַ,” HALOT, 3:1197-1198.
The verse subscripts did not render in my paste above. Hope I got all the colons in the right place.
Sola lingua bona est lingua mortua
ἡ μόνη ἀγαθὴ γλῶσσα γλῶσσα νεκρὰ ἐστιν
lišanu ēdēnitu damqitu lišanu mītu
Accordance Configurations :
Mac : 2009 27" iMac Windows : HP 4540s laptop
Intel Core Duo Intel i5 Ivy Bridge
12GB RAM 8GB RAM
Accordance 11.0.7 Accordance 11.0.7
OSX 10.10.5 (Yosemite) Win 7 Professional x64 SP1
Posted Yesterday, 11:31 AM
Grammatical gender must be inferred from agreement, and רוּחַ agrees with the 3ms verb יַעֲטוֹף. The word נֶפֶשׁ shows a similar phenomenon. However, there is no accusative tag in the MORPH database AFAIK, and the instant details should should say "noun common both singular absolute" based on the raw version of the Groves-Wheeler DB that I have.
I do have an older version of the DB, so it is possible that the Groves-Wheeler people decided to tag רוּחַ as either masculine or feminine depending on the context in a more recent revision. [EDIT: looking at it again this is most likely the case. Groves-Wheeler uses HALOT as authoritative for these types of questions and HALOT specifically characterizes רוּחַ as feminine only sometimes masculine as Daniel noted above (cf. נֶפֶשׁ for which HALOT lists no grammatical gender)]
I don't have any idea where "accusative" would have come from. You seem to have found an error.
Edited by Peter Bekins, Yesterday, 12:06 PM.
Posted Yesterday, 11:56 PM
The newer HMT-W4 has "Noun common masculine singular absolute". This text has the corrected tags, and we'll actually be posting the 4.20 morph edition later today (Monday). I have no idea why the BHS-T and older BHS-W4 show "accusative" as that is not a noun tag for Hebrew. It does look like a bug rather than an error in the text tagging.
Posted Today, 07:11 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users