# בא בעבי שחקים



## PowerOfChoice

Am I correct in translating the words "בא בעבי שחקימ" with "coming with deep laughters" or even "coming with hearty laughters?" How can I improve upon it?


----------



## amikama

First of all: בא בעבי שחקי*ם*.

Secondly, context and background would help us a lot. Your sentence could also mean "[he] comes/came in the clouds of the skies" (rough translation).


----------



## origumi

עבי שחקים is a biblical expression that means "dark clouds in the sky". Compare to 2 Samuel 22:12, Psalms 18:12.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

amikama said:


> First of all: בא בעבי שחקי*ם*.
> 
> Secondly, context and background would help us a lot. Your sentence could also mean "[he] comes/came in the clouds of the skies" (rough translation).


 


Thanks Amikama! I understand your "also..." to mean that both translations (mine and yours) are linguistically and grammatically correct and each may be considered and used as an alternative - depending upon the context. Your confirmation of my understanding of your post will be greatly appreciated. Thanks again!


----------



## origumi

PowerOfChoice said:


> I understand your "also..." to mean that both translations (mine and yours) are linguistically and grammatically correct and each may be considered and used as an alternative - depending upon the context.


Your translation is illegible.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

origumi said:


> Your translation is illegible.


 

Thanks Origumi,


Yes, I agree that my suggested translation of "בא בעבי שחקימ" is "illegible" relative to the contexts of the two passages you referenced in your first post above, i.e. my translation would be impossible or very difficult to read into either 2 Samuel 22:12 or Psalms 18:12.

However, my suggested translation was not intended for either of those Tanach passages. 

Suppose a friend of mine is approaching me whilst in the midst of a burst of a series of deep and hearty laughter. Wouldn’t the words "בא בעבי שחקימ" be applicable to such a situation?


----------



## origumi

PowerOfChoice said:


> Suppose a friend of mine is approaching me whilst in the midst of a burst of a series of deep and hearty laughter. Wouldn’t the words "בא בעבי שחקימ" be applicable to such a situation?


That wouldn't be applicable for the simple reason that nobody would understand what you mean.

You can try other alternatives, for example צוחק מעומק הלב.


----------



## hadronic

The problem here is that the two meanings refer to two different readings of the same writing.
For "in dark clouds in the sky",  it would be: _be-'avey sh'khakim _(1)
For "in the depth of laughters", it would be: _be-'avi skhakim _(2)

So, you mean that even pronounced as (2), the sentence is not understandable ?

Caveat, while checking my dictionary : it says that _sakhak _ שחק  doesn't have any plural form, is this why it sounds to you unnatural ?


----------



## PowerOfChoice

hadronic said:


> The problem here is that the two meanings refer to two different readings of the same writing.
> For "in dark clouds in the sky", it would be: _be-'avey sh'khakim _(1)
> For "in the depth of laughters", it would be: _be-'avi skhakim _(2)
> 
> So, you mean that even pronounced as (2), the sentence is not understandable ?
> 
> Caveat, while checking my dictionary : it says that _sakhak _שחק doesn't have any plural form, is this why it sounds to you unnatural ?


 
I too am waiting for the answers to these questions...


----------



## Maayan

hadronic said:


> The problem here is that the two meanings refer to two different readings of the same writing.
> For "in dark clouds in the sky", it would be: _be-'avey sh'khakim _(1)
> For "in the depth of laughters", it would be: _be-'avi skhakim _(2)
> 
> So, you mean that even pronounced as (2), the sentence is not understandable ?
> 
> Caveat, while checking my dictionary : it says that _sakhak _שחק doesn't have any plural form, is this why it sounds to you unnatural ?


 
hadronic, my even-shusan says the plural for sakhak שָֹחַק is sakhaku שָֹחֲקוּ.


----------



## BezierCurve

> hadronic, my even-shusan says the plural for sakhak שָֹחַק is sakhaku שָֹחֲקוּ.


But that's applicable for the past form of the verb, isn't it? What about the noun?


----------



## Maayan

BezierCurve said:


> But that's applicable for the past form of the verb, isn't it? What about the noun?


 
Also in even-shushan: שְחוֹק, שְחוֹקִים


----------



## hadronic

That's another word.
We're talking about sakhak, the segolate noun with two patakh's.


----------



## origumi

What's the point of this discussion? If the thread opener wants reasonable translation for the English sentence, she/he should provide some context.

If it's an attempt to explain how parts of the proposed translation may be somehow correct - in my humble opinion there are better ways to translate / learn / express [in|to] Hebrew.


----------



## hadronic

No, I think that the OP is asking in which extend בא בעבי שחקים  pronounced as "be-'avi s'khakim"  _cannot  _be actual legible Hebrew.
At least, this is my side-question, that is not too far off topic IMHO.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

hadronic said:


> No, I think that the OP is asking in which extend בא בעבי שחקים pronounced as "be-'avi s'khakim" _cannot _be actual legible Hebrew.
> At least, this is my side-question, that is not too far off topic IMHO.


 


Thanks Hadronic!

That is what I am asking. Your questions in your first post are also right on: 




hadronic said:


> The problem here is that the two meanings refer to two different readings of the same writing.
> For "in dark clouds in the sky", it would be: _be-'avey sh'khakim _(1)
> For "in the depth of laughters", it would be: _be-'avi skhakim _(2)
> 
> So, you mean that even pronounced as (2), the sentence is not understandable ?
> 
> Caveat, while checking my dictionary : it says that _sakhak _שחק doesn't have any plural form, is this why it sounds to you unnatural ?


 


The reason I have not yet provided more of the context is that I wish to free our study in this particular from the tendency to prejudice that is always tied to traditional thinking. I hope each one will understand and accept that. Thanks!


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Well, it seems to me that no one is willing to answer Hadronic’s questions, which questions are also mine. 

It may seem to me that this unwillingness to consider objectively the meaning of those words by themselves without more could be a matter of pride or prejudice based upon a prior stand. 

Yet, in case such a stand is based solely upon the [usually sound] principle that the full context must be supplied, as requested within this forum, I am now supplying the requested context:

This passage is found in Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew 26:64…




As you can see for yourself, the text is totally unpointed and either of Hadronic’s optional pronunciations may apply…

Remember too, that the pointing of ancient texts is a very late addition that in no way has to represent the intent of the originator and author of a given passage. Such pointing and vowel addition may indeed represent nothing but the prejudice prevalent during the dark ages and does severely limit our abilities to fully understand any given passage…



Shalom,

Tree of Life ©


----------



## origumi

Matthew is originally Greek, not Hebrew, at least the known version. Most scholars believe that there was no Hebrew/Aramaic earlier verion from which the Greek one was translated. It is not known what was the Hebrew text in the hands of 14th century Shem Tov, yet it's believed that Shem Tov manipulated it to suit his beliefs.

Go please to the Greek text and read there: ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. In English it means _in/on the clouds of the sky_, as amikama and myself explained several days ago. We came with this explanation based solely on the Hebrew text, knowing nothing about the context.

Can you explain the motivation to give this Hebrew translation of Matthew a meaning which is inconsistent with both Matthew and the Hebrew language?


----------



## hadronic

Ok, this is a point.

But now, my subsidiary question : I'm just curious to know how legible  "_be-'avi skhakim_" can be. If you're told so, what would you understand ?


----------

