Analysing the transformation from pointed to malé text

 Now that I have my answer, I admit that I can't find the energy to analyse how I got there and to simplify the rules. Two examples in this post: 

1. kih (life, etc) has 20 explicit rules in my program. 
2. tab (longing) has none! 

OK חיה is complex and demands a simplification. תאב on the other hand, is simply direct substitution of consonant for consonant and ignore all vowels.

Root	Domain	Word	Count	Pointing	Gloss	References
tab	Love	ltabh	1	לְתַאֲבָ֑ה	for longing	Psa 119:20(3)
		mtab	1	מְתָאֵ֤ב	am longing for	Amo 6:8(9)
		mtabl	2	מִתְאַבֵּ֣ל	be longing	1Sa 16:1(8)
				מִתְאַבֵּ֖ל	he was longing	Ezr 10:6(21)
		tabu	2	תֹאב֖וּ	you are amenable	Lev 26:21(6)
				־תֹּאב֖וּ	you are amenable	Isa 1:19(2)
		tabti	2	תָּאַ֣בְתִּי	I have longed	Psa 119:40(2)
				תָּאַ֣בְתִּי	I have longed to come	Psa 119:174(1)

Admittedly, some of them are ignored because of specific rules: 

• Hireq is not rendered in a closed syllable. so m(i)t is rendered as mt (orange above). 
• A double i is not permitted, 
• but in any case, re the above two issues, tab has no yod and therefore hireq is not rendered by default (fuschia above). 
• Vav with dagesh is always u. So no need to specify a rule or an exception for this word.

(Maybe there are not enough uses of this root to show where its complexity might lie.)

In contrast, for life, these are the 20 explicit mentions of kih in my program. Needless to say it obeys or disobeys the implicit or general rules as it sees fit.

To start, kih is a named exception to 'my' generic rule about feminine plural suffixes: 

1. vvi-dagesh-v-holem-t becomes vviiot, 
2. hireq-i-dagesh-v-holem-t becomes iiot. 
3. i-dagesh-v-holem-t becomes iiot.
4. hireq-i-dagesh-holem-t becomes iiot.
5. i-dagesh-qamats-h becomes iih.

You might well ask where did the vv come from! It is not a normal pairing of letters in a pointed text. There are some places in the program where the sequence of application of the rules is important. I reduced this gradually in the first 8 months of experimentation, but in the last month since my most recent dive into the program, I compromised with this rule and moved about half the vv processing into the first step in the transformation.

My guess is that there is a generic vv process (as intimated by the wiki article on this transformation) that I should fully implement first. And then things in other places would simplify. In a 2500+ line program with several subordinate functions, you can see that if I implemented such a 'perfect' rule, the remainder of the program might still work (unlikely), but it would be full of unnecessary code. This is not a game I want to play at the moment, since I have my desired answer, a full list of Hebrew roots validated against two different databases, the WLC and the malé text.

When I began this process 14 years ago, I could find no such list. I did inquire a few times, though I never bought or even used free versions of other people's data because validation was an essential component of my mushroom hunt. I have some mushrooms in my collection that are offspring of others, but none of them is poisonous. (Metaphor, folks). I.e. there are some roots that are very similar and clearly one is derived from the other, but I have kept them separate, like xdiq and xdq. And I have some that are joined that some glossaries distinguish, like hlc and ilc. As I look at that data, my feeling is that the noun and verb forms of righteous should be treated as one root, not two. 

Getting back to kih - why so many explicit mentions in my program? 

• It is also an exception to a common final i rule. Almost all stems transform qamats-final i or patah-final i to ii. But not kih and a half-dozen others.  
• kih allows a double i, with about 10 other roots, 
• it transforms an internal tsere into ii with some exceptions, 
• it transforms an initial or internal qamats-i into a double i. 
• It prevents hireq from instantiating as an i. 
• It does not generally transform holem to 'o', but there are exceptions. 
• v-qamats and v-patah become vv for kih along with several other roots. 
• Under some conditions patah-i-patah becomes ii and hatef-patah-i-hireq becomes ii. 
• Under several more complex decisions, the middle i becomes ii. 
• Back to the feminine ending, patah-i-dagesh-v-holem-t becomes iiot. 
• and for prefix 'l' and suffix 'to', i-dagesh-holam becomes iio. 
• For kih I remove a trailing h sometimes 
• and v-holem may become a final h. 
• tsere-a may become i. 
• A final qamats may become an h. 
• And a final h-qamats may become an ha and generate an interior ii.

Now do you see why I don't want to take on a simplification of this program. Its work is done. Perhaps I will find some easier transformation rules. But perhaps not. You can see kih in all its glory here. If you can derive a simpler set of rules for it, please let me know. Not for the sake of a program that will never be used again, but for the sake of reading Hebrew.

Logic and conclusions

It's possible to come to a correct conclusion even if one's logical path is imperfect. This fact is illustrated in programming. One should have only the necessary and sufficient conditions for any given decision. But it could be in the larger context, that a decision was not necessary at all. One may have several ways of approaching a result. The result may be proven from the clear input data, no matter what tortuous path is traced through the program. The result may be good and useful even if the method could have been better.

Another important thing for a programmer is sharp tools. We need to be able to see inside our decision making. This involves a trace mechanism, and writing code for our thoughts to suggest where the change is required. This is particularly true of experimental programming. Experimental programming is a bit like life. One has to change course if the results dictate.

One might ask if these principles may be applied to non-programming situations. Is there any logic, for instance, to wanting to have children? Or to voting a particular way? Is the logic of the majority only based on necessary and sufficient conditions? By no means! In these cases the imprecise and unmeasurable inputs from our culture, our desire, and our prejudice, will be judged by the result. You shall know them by their fruits, says one who is famous both in his words and in his work. But how will we see inside our decision making? Do we need to conform to what we see around us? Or do we need to change our behaviour because of what we fail to see around us?

In this case, we are not dealing with a program, so the results, the fruits, prove whether the decision based on its vague inputs and a mysterious brain wave was a good one. Then the vague inputs and decisions will be judged by the results and not vice versa.

What are these good fruits? Do they include war, chaos, violence, self-interest, a protection racket, the distortion of information? Or should we judge fruits by the character of the God portrayed in our sacred texts. Love, tenderness, care for others? Can one tell truth from falsehood? If someone is always getting ahead and someone else is always lagging, is the problem with the prejudice of the social structures or with the capacity of the one who is lagging? Perhaps such a one just needs more incentives, or perhaps the social systems (there are plenty of these on all sides) are an entrapment. (We all know many of these entrapments, these barriers to social mobility.)

I can come up with a way to study Hebrew based on the relatively firm data of the Hebrew canon. My logic may be imperfect even if my final presentation is complete and clear. There may be, in other words, easier ways to arrive at my conclusions. But the conclusions will be provable from the data regardless of my decisions. It will not be as easy to prove a decision whether or not to defend myself against violence to my way of life. My self-defense is not so clearly proved.

In the case of exercising one's role in a democracy, the present conclusions reveal a problem on the input side of the process. I am speaking outside my scope of responsibility but not outside the scope of the effects of the 4 years of Trump to my south.

He claimed he was good for the economy. He was not. The stock market on which we all depend has been seriously volatile these past 4 years. He inherited an excellent economy and he manipulated it through the tax cuts and the chaos of unnecessary trade battles for the ends of the cronies he is beholden to. His record is there for all who have eyes to see.

Republicans have been known to despise both the words socialism and liberalism. But they are social people just like anyone else. At least I hope they are not anti-social! They also hate big government, but it is not noticeably smaller when they have power. 

I hear that those who voted for the incumbent were really voting against abortion and same-sex relationships. But they were voting for a person who was like the judge in the city who "feared not God, neither regarded man." He only gave them what they wanted to buy their votes. And they won't get what they wanted anyway, because though they say they are looking for moral behaviour, they are really seeking in their ignorance to perpetuate injustice. 

(What! Is God unjust? By no means! But our reading of Scripture is unjust. We often use it to justify ourselves, not to receive the justification that is God's alone: i.e., to seek the good of others, and behave as God does with a preferential option for the poor, as I have so often noted.)

Of course, there is really no 'they' to speak of. We are all individuals, even extreme individuals, not recognizing our social prejudices, valuing our lives but failing to hear the one who said, Whoever would save their own life will lose it. 

I heard some logic from a republican. If he (Trump) loses, we will lose our way of life. Nonsense. You have been losing your own way of life quite independent of his winning or losing. He was losing you your way of life even as he coddled your ignorance with his bitter tweets. Some of your religious leadrs claimed Trump was anointed. Yes, to reveal your own emptiness and fear. You could hope for something better than that from God. But you got the leader you deserved to expose just what alligators in the swamp look like.

I also heard about freedom. I did not hear much about care except Dr Fauci's clear note, "I do not know how to teach you that we must care for others." He was teaching then even in this statement of not knowing how to do it. It is not in anyone's interest to have sick people working because they have no health insurance. It should not take a pandemic to convince us of this. 

Your wealth is in your people. If they are poor, so are you. We are not free to drive on the left side of the road in North America. Neither should we be free to exploit our workers, or ignore regulations that govern the safety of others, or run businesses only for the good of the shareholders or only for profit. Read that carefully. I am not saying you can't run a business or make a profit. Of course you can, but not by making it impossible for others to do the same. Freedom? To wear a mask? Admittedly there has been confusion here. But freedom needs to be free to chose what is right for one's own protection as well as the protection of others. It is more mutual responsibility than it is freedom. At the moment, the consensus is that a mask will both protect you and protect others from you. 

It's strange, this appeal to freedom. Elevating freedom above our social mutuality is sin. He who would save his life will lose it. (And it often is a 'he' problem, but allow the pronoun its generality.)

So what should we do? When the people of Jerusalem heard about the resurrection of Jesus, they were cut to the heart and they said - what should we do? 

We know what to do - to act with justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly. If I say 'with our God', or not, it amounts to the same thing. Adding God to a sentence is often just confusing. There is a human social imperative in the Bible: You will love your associate (aka neighbour) as yourself. This second commandment is the same as the first. Do the right thing. Love your enemy with mercy rather than punishment or vengeance in your mind. And bear in mind, you might be wrong in your deeds and thoughts.

But for goodness sake, do not help Trump to continue to bear false witness.

The consequences of this aberration will be seen for years. I hope my neighbors to the south can heal each other. The disease is more than a virus.

Understanding Hebrew vowels - a pandemic project

I have always found the vowels in the Hebrew Bible quite difficult. If I had to begin again, I would learn Biblical Hebrew today beginning with the music of the accents. I would hope to have a teacher who could train my ear without having to read dots and dashes. The music as reconstructed by Haïk-Vantoura is so beautiful that one can escape both the foreignness of a new language and its religious character by entering into beauty first. Actually my first learning of Hebrew was through music, the Chichester Psalms by Bernstein. Psalm 2 was quite challenging to sing with its angular rhythms. (Different music than the music embedded in the text, of course).

I say, escape the religious nature of the text, because there is a tendency, when translating a religious text, to jump to conclusions based on previous training or exposure to cultural norms. The music bypasses that to some extent.

Having set many verses in English to the embedded music in the Hebrew, (a miniscule amount of the total possibilities here), I am reviewing the language by examining the role of the vowels. Hebrew was written without them for most of its early life. They were added in the Masoretic text in the centuries following the destruction, remembered today. Now the pointed text is 'obsolete in Modern Hebrew', and the unpointed maleh text is used. It bears a relationship to the pointed text, but what is that relationship? The comparison of the two text forms is described at the link, and it was from that wiki article that I took my first rule: the hireq is not realized in words that do not contain /i/ in their base form. My understanding depended first on reading and decoding these rules, a process I found quite difficult.

Slave

That first rule I followed was to my mind only partially true until this moment, but it was an adequate starting point. I had a list of many stems (about 75!) that are now reduced to 5 stems: bin, hih, ihvh, kih, and mmi. Dozens of my 'exceptions to this rule' are managed by the rule above it about schwa nah. (See the summary at the end of this post). If I also used the remaining sub-points in that list below, who knows, rules and exceptions may be reduced again. The problem with decoding human language and re-coding it in a computer data language is subtle. What I have done is a second chiseling of the rock, knocking away some things that are not part of the final image. A third chiseling will happen.

These are a rough statement of the rules I have implemented. I have been able to section my program based on these criteria applied in this sequence:

1. some common middle sequences of vowels and consonants involving vv, (needs further analysis), but it does follow a rule, sort of,
2. vav's appear sometimes depending on hatef qamats(1459), hatef patah(1458) and hataf segol(1459),
3. hireq (1460) prior to aleph in third position on a stem for some suffixes, (ti, im, t) becomes i and the aleph disappears,
4. nearly 50 common suffixes apply universally and about 10 have a few exceptions,
5. qamats-h at the end of a word sometimes is dropped,
6. qamats(1464) in several combinations with i and v becomes ii for some stems,
7. patah 
1. with v becomes ii for some stems,
2. with i likewise,
8. holam(1465)
1. 'oh' becomes o for some stems,
2. for a set of stems, holam does not appear,
3. oa and ao have some specific rules,
9. tsere (1461) 
1. vi may become vii,
2. tsere with yod may have the yod removed,
3. tsere with aleph may drop the aleph,
4. i with tsere may become ii,
5. tsere may become i
10. hireq
1. i + hireq + the first character of the stem with dagesh and patah or qamats becomes ii,
2. hireq disappears for a closed syllable,
3. in the hiphil, hi is suppressed,
4. i may become ii,
5. hireq may become i,
11. segol may become i,
12. a missing aleph may be restored,
13. i with dagesh and segol, patah, or qamats may become i
14. i with holam becomes io,
15. v with dagesh becomes u in front of b, m, and p, (that one is really easy),
16. some stems have a yod removed,
17. for the remaining qamats
1. with aleph may be dropped,
2. for some stems, create a final h, or ha,
3. with m, may become mo,
4. with h, may become ho,
5. in most closed syllables, will become o,
6. with several stems in open syllables will become o,
18. Finally, some i's are removed with common single and double prefixes,
19. some stems do not allow double i,
20. and there are a couple of spelling errors in the WLC that are corrected in the maleh text.

That is still too many rules and too many exceptions, and I haven't let you know yet the lists of stems to which these rules apply or not, but it works and it is now a better predictor for the remaining 7/8ths of the Bible. It could be that some classes of stems may have a rule applied.

Several possible refinements suggest themselves to me as I document this sequence. If you have any insights as to general rules, please let me know in a comment. I think this is a useful exercise. It has been my pandemic project.

Now let me read those instructions yet again!

• Every letter that appears in vowelled text also appears in unvowelled text. [Not so, some /h/, /i/, and /a/ letters are dropped]
• After a letter vowelled with a kubuts (the vowel /u/), the letter ו appears: קופסה‎, הופל‎, כולם. [yes]
• After a letter vowelled with a holam haser (the vowel /o/) the letter ו appears: בוקר‎, ישמור. [sometimes. There are many exceptions.]
• After a letter vowelled with a hirik haser (the vowel /i/) the letter י appears: דיבור‎, יישוב‎, תעשייה. The letter י does not appear in the following situations:
• Before a shva nah, for example: הרגיש‎, מנהג‎, דמיון; [yes with exceptions]
• Words whose base forms do not contain the vowel /i/: ליבי ‎(לב)‎, איתך ‎(את)‎, עיתים ‎(עת); [yes with exceptions]
• After affix letters, like in מביתו, מיד, הילד, and also in the words: עם‎, הינה ‎(=הִנֵּה, and inflected: עימי etc., הינו, etc.), אם‎, מן; [yes with exceptions, further study required]
• Before יו (/ju/ or /jo/): דיון‎, קיום‎, בריות‎, נטיות. [haven't tried this rule]
• After a letter vowelled with a tsere (the vowel /e/) the letter י generally does not appear [ממד ‎(=מֵמַד‎), אזור ‎(=אֵזוֹר‎)], but there are situations when י does appear (תיבה‎, הישג) and in words in which tsere replaces hirik because the presence of a guttural letter (אהחע"ר‎): תיאבון ‎(שיגעון‎), תיאבד ‎(תימצא). [yes but I didn't test to see if a guttural is always involved.]
• Consonantal ו (the consonant /v/) is doubled in the middle of a word: תקווה‎, זווית. The letter is not doubled at the beginning or the end of a word: ורוד‎, ותיק‎, צו. Initial ו is doubled when an affix letter is added except for the affix ו- (meaning "and-"). Thus from the word ורוד one has הוורוד but וורוד (that is, וּוֶרד). [If you can read this rule... my implementation works, perhaps I can explain it.]
• Consonantal י (the consonant /j/) is doubled in the middle of a word, for example: בניין‎, הייתה. The letter is not doubled at the beginning of a word or after affix letters: ילד‎, יצא ‎(=יֵצֵא‎), הילד.Still, consonantal י is not doubled in the middle of a word when it is before or after mater lectionis: פרויקט‎, מסוים‎, ראיה ‎(=ראָיָה‎), הפניה‎, בעיה. [I have all the ii's working, but the statement of this rule is unclear to me]

Those are the most basic rules. For every one of them are exceptions, described in the handbook "כללי הכתיב חסר הניקוד" that the Academy publishes in Hebrew. [which I have not read, and probably could not.]

Here is an earlier post on this subject from a few months ago when I first set a chisel to this rock. Next post on this subject, I will see how many rules have been further refined and what exceptions by stem remain. It may then be time to look in detail at the stem lists and constraints.

The maleh text and the Leningrad Codex

I have for the last 4 months been comparing the pointed (WLC) and unpointed (maleh) texts of the Hebrew Bible. The maleh text (the word is variously spelled) roughly means 'full spelling'. I think of it as the Bible according to the spelling standards of modern Hebrew as you might find it in a newspaper.

Let's see an example.

Qohelet 4
שְׁמֹ֣ר רַגְלְךָ֗ כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר תֵּלֵךְ֙ אֶל־בֵּ֣ית הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים וְקָר֣וֹב לִשְׁמֹ֔עַ מִתֵּ֥ת הַכְּסִילִ֖ים זָ֑בַח כִּֽי־אֵינָ֥ם יוֹדְעִ֖ים לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת רָֽע	iz wmor rglç cawr tlç al-bit halohim vqrob lwmoy mtt hcsilim zbk ci-ainm iodyim lywot ry	יז שמור רגלך כאשר תלך אל־בית האלוהים וקרוב לשמוע מתת הכסילים זבח כי־אינם יודעים לעשות רע	17 Keep your footing as you are walking to the house of God, and approach more to hear than to give an offering among the dullards, for they haven't a clue that what they do is evil.

Comparing the two is a long way from just dropping the dots and saying you are done. The relationship between columns 2 and 3 is (almost) reversible. Column 1 cannot be built from either column 2 or column 3. Information has been lost and transformed in several ways. The algorithm I have written takes column 1 and transforms it into column 2, a left to right simulation of column 3. So in effect, I am comparing the Leningrad codex (tanach.us) with the maleh text such as is found on the Mechon-Mamre site (mechon-mamre.org). You can transform any Hebrew to SimHebrew here. (So why are you doing this exercise, Bob?) Read on.

So the first word above שְׁמֹ֣ר is in the full spelling שמור or in SimHebrew wmor. The rule of allowing the holam to become o is not followed for all words but is easily seen in this example. The second and third words do appear to just drop the dots. רַגְלְךָ֗ becomes רגלך rglç and כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר becomes כאשר or cawr. This word is so mirror image. The w is not, of course, the w familiar to an English speaker, but an /s/ or, in this case, /sh/ sound.

One verse will not illustrate all the rules. Of the 38,543 words in my test data, 19,568 simply drop the dots. About 50%. Good grief what do the rest of them do? Dropping the dots would be a trivial string manipulation problem. One would do that in an hour or so. It would not require 6 months of experimental programming.

Of the remaining, there are 9,217 with my column 2 (Sim) showing o, u, and v where column 3 (maleh) will have only v. Rule: o and u are realized in SimHebrew but not in the maleh text. These vowels may also come from holam or qubuts so that is why columns 2 and 3 are not fully reversible. When my program converts WLC to SimHebrew, it sees the qubuts, otherwise invisible in maleh text.

That still leaves us with another 10,000 or so to account for. These are the places where hireq is or is not rendered, or tsere, segol become i or double i, and the myriad of possibilities for the various shades of the vowels for /a/, hatef and otherwise. These become double i, or i, or o, or v. Even the humble schwa plays vital roles in the process.

In the test data, there are 10 verses that show a conflict where the identical word in WLC has been converted into conflicting forms in the maleh text. Only 10 words in 10 verses out of 38,543 words, a little over 1/8th of the Bible.

So roughly 50% are simple string manipulation, 25% are v-related, and 25% are i-related and 0.03% are in conflict. I should note that the maqaf plays no part in the transformation (and there are variations in the placement of maqaf between the two text sources.) You can see in the result that SimHebrew contains some i's, o's, u's, and a's (only some of which sound like a) but no e's. /a/ like /y/ is a guttural and can carry any vowel.

Now I will search for a way to explain to you how the program decides what to do with a word. (See the next post.) And you can tell me how to simplify it further. Then we will begin to 'make visible' a little of the psychology behind the use of vowels in the Hebrew text.

Preliminary thoughts towards a performance of music related to creation

Humanity does not have a perfect record for caring for the land / earth, but it does have many positives too. The care exhibited e.g. for the local Orca and the cooperation between Washington State and BC is laudable. We should not get too discouraged though it may be too little too late. Even a little done well, e.g. the tiger management in Eastern Russia, will have multiplying effects.

I was looking for some work on ecology and the Scripture. What I saw on the web was pretty trivial and totally dependent on English translations already memorized - and maybe misleading.

I do think we must govern the world with more shrewdness than our nations have currently shown. But how would one read the instruction that shows that the land/earth (same word ארץ in Hebrew) is God's not ours? And what does that imply? That we should be irresponsible? hardly.

The first time we see "the earth/land is Yahweh's" in so many words, is in the story of the Exodus. Pharaoh is to be taught that he is not in charge.

Exodus 9:29 - note in the last three words to whom the land belongs

And Moses said to him, As I go forth from the city, I will spread my palm to Yahweh.
The rumblings will be set aside and there will not be any more hail, so that you may know that the earth is Yahweh's.

(It should be encouraging that everyone is taught knowledge - not just the chosen.)

The second occurrence of this phrase is in Psalm 24. (This is a key psalm).

Psalms 24:1, of David, a psalm.
The earth is Yahweh's and her fullness,
the world and those sitting in her.

Yet the earth has been given to the children of humanity. (Psalm 115 Non-nobis domine, a psalm that is paired with Psalm 114 In exitu Israel. So this theme of creation leads via the psalms to the theme of redemption - but that's a subject for another day, another program.)

Psalms 115:16 The heavens' heavens belong to Yahweh,
but the earth he has given to the children of humanity.

That the earth is not ours to exploit is one thing. But it is ours in that it has been given to us. Israel, on behalf of all, is promised and given a specific land. The Biblical record records the judgment of Israel for polluting the land that they were given and they end up in exile. The metaphor of exile has its generalization also in the experience of everyone. So also we can generalize from the first chapter of Genesis, where the human is created in the image and likeness of God in order to rule:

And God blessed them and God said to them, Be fruitful and increase and fill the earth and control it. And rule among the fish of the sea and among the fowl of the heavens and among every living creeper upon the earth.

What sort of control and rule is implied? The old English versions have "subdue and have dominion". One could still read 'care for' into these words, but it seems more difficult.

Genesis 1:26-27

There is a gap of course between what we should do and what we actually do. But we have also among many, the positive aspects of the Orca and the tiger mentioned above.

So I am looking to design a program for creation in music. I suppose it should also include care.

The first part of the program could be introduced with the opening of Genesis. (One might also divide the presentation by the seven days. Day 1 as an entry, Day 7 as an exit, and the other days as interludes between related presentations.)

The whole of Genesis 1 is performed here. 12 minutes.
Copeland In the beginning. 15-20 minutes.
I am sure there are others.

Also directly related to creation is Job. Contrast, Let there be light, in Genesis 1 with Job 3:3 ff
3 Perish! day when I was born,
and the night promising pregnancy of a valiant child.
4 That day - let it be darkness.
Let God not search for it from above,
nor let a sunbeam on it shine.

Job 3:4-10

Add Jeremiah 20:14 ff

Related Psalms to day 6 - a possible theme - Psalms 8, Purcell, Lord, what is man?
What is a mortal? for you remember it.
And a child of humanity? for you visit it,

And you make it a little less than God,
and with glory and honour you crown it.

You give it governance over what your hands make.
All, you put under its feet.

Psalms 8:5-7

and 144,

Yahweh, what is this humanity that you know it,
a mortal child that you devised it?

Humanity is like futility,
its days as a shadow passing away.

Psalms 144:3-4

and Job 7,
What is a mortal that you make him great,
and that you impose on him your heart?
And you visit him in the mornings.
At every moment you test him.

How long till you not look at me,
or desist from me, even as I swallow my spit?

Job 7:17 the words mimicking Psalms 8 and 144

Psalm 19 also

Psalm 19:2

A setting of The Heavens are Telling, e.g. Haydn, could follow.

If anyone reads to the bottom, do you have some more suggestions of 1. Scripture from the OT that fits the theme, or 2. Music from the 13th to the 21st century that fits the theme?