Two atnach in one verse

 Two atnach in one verse, Genesis 35:22.

I have been trying to account for a mismatch on one word that should not be a mismatch according to my coding, but that is just the issue with debugging - one often can't see why something is happening. I eventually found the extra chr(010) in my input stream and the discrepancy disappeared as it should have.

Then I noted that this verse has two emperors! 

How did I fail to note this? Perhaps all my statistical routines assume that there is only zero or one such accent in a verse. It looks as if the music program gets both repetitions, but it fails to note the rest in the text. (It usually puts in a pause // at the subdominant cadence.) In both instances there are two accents on the one syllable. Again this is a rare situation in the music, most frequent in the decalogue chapters.

Genesis 35:22 a unique case of two atnach in one verse.
 וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑֔יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵֽ֑ל פ 
וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר

Comparing Isaiah 25, various translations

In today's lesson while listening to the Selwyn evensong I noted a few issues with translating and I thought I would explore them a little more.

Should one pay attention to words? City vs town in verse 2. KJV and NRSV ignore the difference between city (yir) and town (qrh). NIV and NRSV ignore the difference between strength (KJV) and refuge. Refuge (ksh) is a totally different word from strength (yzz). Strength in verse 4 reflects the strong in verse 3. I think the translator should reflect the same stem in both Hebrew and English. There are some good arguments against concordant translation but they don't apply here.

But speaking of concordance, what is to be done with the word I have rendered as clutch? Why did I use this word? The translations are not confusing but explanatory. My rendering is a stumble to read. This word is used 38 times for the name Lot. It is used only 5 times in the sense of something that grasps and clothes you tightly. The 5 instances include two examples of 'clutching' the face, 1 Kings 19:13, Isaiah clutched his face in his majestic cape, and 2 Samuel 19:5, David clutches his face (perhaps with his hands) out of sadness at the death of Absalom. In 1 Samuel 21:10, the sword of Goliath is clutched in a shawl behind the ephod. So the word seems to signify a covering of some sort. It is all too easy to smooth the translation out so that no one hears the uniqueness of the usage any more. Translations typically allow this unique usage to be veiled in the English by using various synonyms for covering, shrouding, veiling the face. HALOT allows the synonym cover or wrap and makes no attempt to distinguish this from other words in Hebrew which are rendered as cover.

The following sentence has the word for a libation (spilling out) used as a noun. JB has invented a parallel, rendering nsc as shroud and enwrap. HALOT allows the synonym intertwine, weave and applies it to the phrase in Proverbs 8:23, wisdom formed or woven before earth came into being, JB has firmly set. This seems to me to be pure invention. I am getting far afield here and my only solution to this problem at the moment is the one below. 

It seems from the next verse that this is a passage that has had an impact far beyond the prophet's immediate concern. Verse 8 is used by Revelation 7:15-16. Isaiah like Proverbs is talking about ultimates, one at one end of our imaginary time line and the other at its apogee in the other imagined direction. The problem is that the language supports the linearity of time assumed in our culture and religious thought, something even our science cannot define. I don't want to give up on this rare word lv't (לוט) just yet. I also don't want to invent another synonym for nsc (נסך) that makes me lose the sense of the libation poured out before the foundation of the world.

It shows my bias. I think I am into a model of time that emphasizes presence - specifically the presence of the sacrifice (spilling out) that is in our face always in the ways we fail to treat each other with justice, and the trouble that has us ever in its clutches, which we call sin resulting in death. This is dealt with, removing our reproach, says Isaiah, but how do we enter into it? How then, should we act? With the same overwhelmingly liberal prodigality which we observe in the created order, life in all its abundance.

So you don't understand my translation on first hearing. You can't pass over it with smooth synonyms. But it stops you in its tracks and you say (as I did) - what did he (I) write that for? That's why I think we should keep the bit about Moab in the lesson (but that's yet another subject while we pursue our economic 'realities'). The lesson omits the last three verses. Are these just all negative verses about Moab? Moab is an intensely important neighbour of Israel. After all, the mother of the line of David emerged from Moab. Is Isaiah simply boasting about Israel and the hill of Zion? I think this trivializes the prophet.

I am not going to solve these issues in a flash.

Isaiah 25
יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהַי֙ אַתָּ֔ה אֲרֽוֹמִמְךָ֙ אוֹדֶ֣ה שִׁמְךָ֔ כִּ֥י עָשִׂ֖יתָ פֶּ֑לֶא עֵצ֥וֹת מֵֽרָח֖וֹק אֱמ֥וּנָה אֹֽמֶן	a ihvh alohii ath arommç aodh wmç ci ywit pla yxot mrkoq amunh aomn	1 Yahweh, my God you are, I will exalt you. I will give thanks to your name, for you have done wonders, advice from afar, dependable faithfulness.
כִּ֣י שַׂ֤מְתָּ מֵעִיר֙ לַגָּ֔ל קִרְיָ֥ה בְצוּרָ֖ה לְמַפֵּלָ֑ה אַרְמ֤וֹן זָרִים֙ מֵעִ֔יר לְעוֹלָ֖ם לֹ֥א יִבָּנֶֽה	b ci wmt myir lgl qrih bxurh lmplh armon zrim myir lyolm la iibnh	2 For you have rendered a city to rubble, a fortified town fallen, a citadel to strangers from a city. Forever it will not be built.
עַל־כֵּ֖ן יְכַבְּד֣וּךָ עַם־עָ֑ז קִרְיַ֛ת גּוֹיִ֥ם עָרִיצִ֖ים יִירָאֽוּךָ	g yl-cn icbduç ym-yz qrit goiim yrixim iirauç	3 Therefore a strong people will glorify you. A town of ruthless nations will fear you.
כִּֽי־הָיִ֨יתָ מָע֥וֹז לַדָּ֛ל מָע֥וֹז לָאֶבְי֖וֹן בַּצַּר־ל֑וֹ מַחְסֶ֤ה מִזֶּ֙רֶם֙ צֵ֣ל מֵחֹ֔רֶב כִּ֛י ר֥וּחַ עָרִיצִ֖ים כְּזֶ֥רֶם קִֽיר	d ci-hiit myoz ldl myoz labion bxr-lo mksh mzrm xl mkorb ci ruk yrixim czrm qir	4 For you have been strength for the weak, strength for the needy in his straits, refuge from inundation, shade from the desert, for a wind of the ruthless is as an inundation of house walls.
כְּחֹ֣רֶב בְּצָי֔וֹן שְׁא֥וֹן זָרִ֖ים תַּכְנִ֑יעַ חֹ֚רֶב בְּצֵ֣ל עָ֔ב זְמִ֥יר עָֽרִיצִ֖ים יַעֲנֶֽה	h ckorb bxion waon zrim tcniy korb bxl yb zmir yrixim iynh	5 As desert in an arid place, the noise of strangers you will subdue. As desert in the shade of thick cloud, the pruning of the ruthless will be answered.
וְעָשָׂה֩ יְהוָ֨ה צְבָא֜וֹת לְכָל־הָֽעַמִּים֙ בָּהָ֣ר הַזֶּ֔ה מִשְׁתֵּ֥ה שְׁמָנִ֖ים מִשְׁתֵּ֣ה שְׁמָרִ֑ים שְׁמָנִים֙ מְמֻ֣חָיִ֔ם שְׁמָרִ֖ים מְזֻקָּקִֽים	v vywh ihvh xbaot lcl-hymim bhr hzh mwth wmnim mwth wmrim wmnim mmukiim wmrim mzuqqim	6 And Yahweh of hosts will make for all the peoples on this hill, a party of stout things, a party of dregs, stout things full of marrow, dregs purged.
וּבִלַּע֙ בָּהָ֣ר הַזֶּ֔ה פְּנֵֽי־הַלּ֥וֹט ׀ הַלּ֖וֹט עַל־כָּל־הָֽעַמִּ֑ים וְהַמַּסֵּכָ֥ה הַנְּסוּכָ֖ה עַל־כָּל־הַגּוֹיִֽם	z ubily bhr hzh pni-hlo't hlo't yl-cl-hymim vhmsch hnsuch yl-cl-hgoiim	7 And he will swallow up on this hill, the face of the clutch, the clutch over all the peoples, and the spilling out, the spilling out over all the nations.
בִּלַּ֤ע הַמָּ֙וֶת֙ לָנֶ֔צַח וּמָחָ֨ה אֲדֹנָ֧י יְהוִ֛ה דִּמְעָ֖ה מֵעַ֣ל כָּל־פָּנִ֑ים וְחֶרְפַּ֣ת עַמּ֗וֹ יָסִיר֙ מֵעַ֣ל כָּל־הָאָ֔רֶץ כִּ֥י יְהוָ֖ה דִּבֵּֽר	k bily hmvvt lnxk umkh adonii ihvh dmyh myl cl-pnim vkrpt ymo isir myl cl-harx ci ihvh dibr	8 He will swallow up death in perpetuity, my Lord Yahweh will wipe away tears from every face. And the reproach of his people he will put aside from all the earth, for Yahweh has spoken.
וְאָמַר֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא הִנֵּ֨ה אֱלֹהֵ֥ינוּ זֶ֛ה קִוִּ֥ינוּ ל֖וֹ וְיֽוֹשִׁיעֵ֑נוּ זֶ֤ה יְהוָה֙ קִוִּ֣ינוּ ל֔וֹ נָגִ֥ילָה וְנִשְׂמְחָ֖ה בִּישׁוּעָתֽוֹ	't vamr biom hhua hnh alohinu zh qivvinu lo viowiynu zh ihvh qivvinu lo ngilh vnwmkh biwuyto	9 And it will be said in that day, Behold this is our God. We have waited for him, and he will save us. This is Yahweh. we have waited for him. We will rejoice and be glad in his salvation.
כִּֽי־תָנ֥וּחַ יַד־יְהוָ֖ה בָּהָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה וְנָ֤דוֹשׁ מוֹאָב֙ תַּחְתָּ֔יו כְּהִדּ֥וּשׁ מַתְבֵּ֖ן בְּמ֥וֹ מַדְמֵנָֽה	i ci-tnuk id-ihvh bhr hzh vndow moab tktiv chduw mtbn bmo mdmnh	10 For the hand of Yahweh will rest on this hill, and Moab will be pounded under him as straw is pounded into compost.
וּפֵרַ֤שׂ יָדָיו֙ בְּקִרְבּ֔וֹ כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר יְפָרֵ֥שׂ הַשֹּׂחֶ֖ה לִשְׂח֑וֹת וְהִשְׁפִּיל֙ גַּֽאֲוָת֔וֹ עִ֖ם אָרְבּ֥וֹת יָדָֽיו	ia uprw idiv bqrbo cawr iprw hwokh lwkot vhwpil gavvto ym arbot idiv	11 And he will spread his hands within it, as the swimmer spreads to swim, and he will humble its pomp with what is lurking in his hands.
וּמִבְצַ֞ר מִשְׂגַּ֣ב חוֹמֹתֶ֗יךָ הֵשַׁ֥ח הִשְׁפִּ֛יל הִגִּ֥יעַ לָאָ֖רֶץ עַד־עָפָֽר	ib umbxr mwgb komotiç hwk hwpil hgiy larx yd-ypr	12 And from the enclosure of the retreat of your ramparts, he will press down, he will abase, he will touch to the earth, even dust.

A Psalm of Thanksgiving

 Here's the original music of Psalm 100 and an English variation for cantor and chorus. I am working on a motet based on these phrases. It is slow work for me to work within this implied harmonic structure.

Direct from the data without modification:

English arrangement for cantor and chorus

Work in process - choral arrangement - (a half-dozen endings tried - couldn't make a cadence in E convincing - seems plausible now!) 

Haïk-Vantoura's version in her own handwriting here and here shows some significant differences in the Letteris edition compared to the WLC (verse 3). The text from a recent reconstruction of the Aleppo Codex agrees with the WLC in this case. There is a performance in Hebrew here.

Naming things

 I suppose you have noticed how we all name things, and concepts, and rules, and precedents, and so on. The pattern is old - reaching back to Adam, that earthling, or groundling that eventually gets a name.

When programming and studying a language, I wonder what constitutes a nameable rule. If every rule is specific to a single stem in a single word form, then there would be not much of a system to the language. I am trying to perceive these rules from the back side of the words. I probably have them somewhat wrong. You may remember that I started with the brief summary on Wikipedia. I had developed some initial named rules as noted here in April. They have both reduced and expanded their scope at this roughly half-way point in the game.

I see the Wiki article has been updated this year. If you read around the 'talk' section, you can see there are some shrewd linguistic minds behind the article.

It would be interesting - perhaps when I am finished - to list the exceptions I have found to each of the rules in that article. E.g.

• Every letter that appears in vowelled text also appears in unvowelled text. [there are a few exceptions, I'm guessing fewer than 100.]
• After a letter vowelled with a kubuts (the vowel /u/), the letter ו‎ appears: קופסה‎‎, הופל‎‎, כולם‎ [I have 12 stems (+la, cla, gal, hsnah, kla, nwa, qra, rah, rpa, wbval, wvah), 36 instances, drop the qubuts when it precedes an aleph. And there is the occasional other, e.g. the qubuts in ymh in the form l/ym\vt Ezekiel 45:7(23), לְעֻמּוֹת֙.]
• After a letter vowelled with a holam haser (the vowel /o/) the letter ו‎ appears: בוקר‎‎, ישמור‎. [I have many exceptions to this rule, over 45 stems affecting about 10,000 instances. This may still be a small % of the whole, but it is a significant one.]
• and so on... 

I have already pointed out the nearly 500 stems (12.5%) that are exceptions to the default hireq rules. And I think there are some rules there that I have not implemented as such but they may emerge. I could eventually compare the two versions of the corpus with dominant rules and exceptions by percentage. It would take some imagination if I have any left after finishing the task at hand.

My overall somewhat vague question is: What is the set of abstractions by which we can have the optimum description of the language?

Perhaps the question is relevant. I would still note that the missing vowels in the unpointed text are critical to singing the words. 

(Non-Hebrew singers must have a text that allows them to know the vowels to sing. Why would anyone sing the text who does not know Hebrew? For the same reason that one would sing Bach in German even if one does not know German. The music fits the tongue it was written for better than it does a translation. And don't say we have no original music - it is in the text even if we disagree on how to read it. And it can be added to the unpointed text.)

Every jot and tittle - Sisyphus strikes again

It occurs to me that I could have entitled this whole series 'every jot and title'.

Genesis 3 to 10 is the current test extension. The first pass gave 56 discrepancies between my calculation of what the unpointed text should be and what it really is. That is 56 in 2,638 words - 2% error rate. Sometimes there is a misalignment - extra words in the source or two words combined into one, but not in this case. Sometimes the verse numbers differ, but not in this section. What surprised me a little in these chapters was the count of distinct discrepancies. I often hope there will be a bunch that will be fixed with one little tweak and this time there are several bunches. 

• The first is tbh, תבה, the word for the barge that Noah built. 
• (It also may be rendered as creel, the basket used by Miriam for Moses in Exodus 2:3, 5.The same word tbh is used for each. I have let the two stand as different words, and different again from ark which I reserve for ארה arh.)
• Back from the distraction of translation, tbh requires the rendering of the tsere. This rule will account for 26 of the discrepancies so I am back down to a 1% error rate with one slight tweak.
• Two more stems, xlh and yrh have three instances each to be reviewed. 
• For xlh, hireq becomes i without conditions. 
• For yrh there is a rule that doubles an inner v. When v occurs with  qamats, tsere, and patah, for some stems it will be doubled in the unpointed text. In the test data so far, about 50 stems follow one of these rules. 

Now it's a matter of one by one. like ahl with a final holem-h drops the h. There are a few stems where final h's get dropped. Some are holem-h and some qamats-h. (Not initial h's as if there were a cockney pronunciation, but the final ones.)

Below are the remaining discrepancies. I examined them one at a time to determine the adjustment required. I think my comments are understandable and they reveal inner workings.

It's not at all clear to me that I will find the simplest algorithm. It may well be that our brains are encoded by stem to just 'know' our language. We supply context to each stem without effort. It is a marvel, but not without its own idiosyncrasies. (Yes English has stems and gadgets too but more words since English prepositions and pronouns are separate words but this is not the general case in Hebrew.)

It might drive you round the bend for me to explain every detail, but it occurs to me in this deliberate walk through of the process that there are other possible ways of implementing the rules. And that the rule patterns as they stand will probably survive the remaining 55% of the data.

These are the types of question I entertain for every discrepancy.

• is there an existing explicit rule?
• is there an existing implicit or general rule that needs an exception?
• is there a new rule?
• am I reading the problem backwards (something I often do), i.e. is the program making the change when it should not?
• is there a conflict or even a contradiction - two words that transform differently?
• is this a spelling adjustment - does it agree with other instances?

Everything I have done to date is automatically retested as I put in new data. That keeps the stone moving up the hill. It only falls down again when I try and simplify the rules.

Reference	stem	form	morph	sim	calculated	Hebrew	comment
Genesis 3:9(8)	aic	aich	aic\h	aiiç	aich	אַיֶּֽכָּה	yod-segol must become ii and the h disappears. This is unique pointing in the Bible.
Genesis 5:29(14)	arr	arrh	arr\h	airrh	arrh	אֵֽרְרָ֖הּ	tsere becomes i
Genesis 8:2(6)	cla	vicla	vi/cla	viicla	vicla	וַיִּכָּלֵ֥א	prefixed i must be doubled
Genesis 6:16(6)	clh	tclnh	t/cl\nh	tclnh	tclinh	תְּכַלֶ֣נָּה	segol does not become i - conflict? No - following an open syllable, the tsere is not realized. Following a closed syllable it is.
Genesis 3:21(6)	ctn	ctnvt	ctn\vt	cvtnvt	ctnot	כָּתְנ֥וֹת	qamats under the first consonant becomes o
Genesis 4:14(2)	grw	grwt	grw\t	girwt	grwt	גֵּרַ֨שְׁתָּ	tsere becomes i
Genesis 3:16(7)	hrh	vhrnc	vh/r\nc	vhrvnç	vhrnç	וְהֵֽרֹנֵ֔ךְ	holem must be observed
Genesis 3:10(10)	kba	vakba	va/kba	vaikba	vakba	וָאֵחָבֵֽא	tsere becomes i
Genesis 7:3(8)	kih	lkivt	l/ki\vt	lkiivt	lkiot	לְחַיּ֥וֹת	ii is missing - I don’t think this one is easy for the program to see. It's a suffix issue and kih is a very complex beast.
Genesis 10:8(6)	kil	hkl	h/kl	hkl	hkil	הֵחֵ֔ל	the first character of the stem followed by tsere should not become i. - a conflict? Turns out no, but must be distinguished from Obadiah 1:20, a unique pointing of the definite article with patah.
Genesis 4:4(7)	klb	vmklbhn	vm/klb\hn	vmklbihn	umklbhn	וּמֵֽחֶלְבֵהֶ֑ן	the second tsere should become an i, an artifact of the suffix. tsere under the third consonant is not a rule on its own.
Genesis 8:12(1)	kvl	viikl	vii/kl	viikl	vivkl	וַיִּיָּ֣חֶל	there are so many yods here, it must be ii but there is also an internal pattern giving 'iv'  that requires an exception for kvl.
Genesis 9:11(10)	mim	mmi	mm\i	mmi	mimi	מִמֵּ֣י	This stem must not allow hireq as i (the default for stems containing a yod)
Genesis 3:16(15)	mwl	imwl	i/mwl	imwvl	imwl	יִמְשָׁל	qamats under the second consonant becomes o
Genesis 4:7(14)	mwl	tmwl	t/mwl	tmwvl	tmwl	תִּמְשָׁל	as above - in both cases the prefix and suffix conditions apply.
Genesis 3:13(11)	nwa	hwiani	h/wa\ni	hwiani	hiwiani	הִשִּׁיאַ֖נִי	prevent the prefix hi. nwa has instances when it is required and when it is not. Some stems are complex for various reasons.
Genesis 4:11(7)	pxh	pxth	px\th	pxth	pxt	פָּצְתָ֣ה	don’t drop the h - conflict? No, just a conditioned rule.
Genesis 9:21(1)	wth	viwt	vi/wt	viiwt	viwt	וַיֵּ֥שְׁתְּ	prefixed i must be doubled? But this is not the case for four other instances of the identical word. So this goes into my database of errors in the source text.
Genesis 4:4(8)	wyh	viwy	vi/wy	viiwy	viwy	וַיִּ֣שַׁע	prefixed i must be doubled
Genesis 10:19(13)	xbaim	vxbim	v/xb\im	vxbviim	uxboim	וּצְבֹיִ֖ם	double i for the name here and in Hosea, spelled differently in WLC, respelled in the unpointed text.
Genesis 6:16(15)	ywh	tywh	t/ywh	tywha	tywh	תַּֽעֲשֶֽׂהָ	add the final ha, conditions on prefix and suffix apply
Genesis 3:19(1)	zyh	bzyt	b/zy\t	bziyt	bzyt	בְּזֵעַ֤ת	tsere becomes i. The word zyh, sweat occurs only twice in the Bible. Perhaps I will do Ezekiel next to pick up the other instance.