# Question on the three letter root wa la da



## mrsonic

In the Arabic translation of psalm 2:7 it is written

...ana al yowma waladtuka.

How is the root  understood in ancient languages ? So for example when a believer in multiple gods uses the word for his gods how is it understood?


----------



## bragpipes

Well, I'm not sure what the question here is.  You probably know that wld is related to birth, but how would polytheism change anything when the keyword here is ana (I)?

From KJB, for those curious: "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou _art_ my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Mrsonic, please clarify.  Or is it just me who's not getting it?


----------



## Ihsiin

أنا اليوم ولدتك = "I begot you today".

Theology won't change the meaning of this phrase.


----------



## berndf

mrsonic said:


> So for example when a believer in multiple gods uses the word for his gods how is it understood?


If he wants to express that all gods jointly say they have begotten him jointly he he wouldn't use the 1st person singular. Like bragpipes quite understand your question. What does this have to do with the meaning of the root W-L-D (_beget, give birth, deliver_; as a noun _child_)?


----------



## mrsonic

"Well, I'm not sure what the question here is. You probably know that wld is related to birth, but how would polytheism change anything when the keyword here is ana (I)?"


when the polytheists use the verb for their gods in ancient writings how is it understood? 
christians try to say that the "waladtuka" is not a literal begetting , but i am just trying to understand how the hebrew neighbors would have understood it thats all .


----------



## mrsonic

" W-L-D (_beget, give birth, deliver_; as a noun _child_)?"

i believe a verb is used in psalm 2:7, right?


----------



## origumi

The Arabic text "ana al yowma waladtuka" is literal and accurate translation of the Hebrew text אֲנִי הַיּוֹם יְלִדְתִּיךָ "ani ha-yyom yəlidtika". "Beget" appears as a verb that says "I have begotten thee".

(CHANGE: corrected the vowels)


----------



## berndf

mrsonic said:


> i believe a verb is used in psalm 2:7, right?


Yes, it is first person singular perfect with with a 2nd person masculine singular object pronoun suffix.


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> The Arabic text "ana al yowma waladtuka" is literal and accurate translation of the Hebrew text אֲנִי הַיּוֹם יְלִדְתִּיךָ "ani ha-yyom yelidtika". "Beget" appears as a verb that says "I have begotten thee".


I have not mentioned this yet as I am struggling with the verb form. Maybe you can help me. It is yəlidətikha. I assume this is Qal. Why not yaladətikha or yəladətikha (The Schwa after D is to my knowledge na`and not nakh in classical recital; don't know why)? Normally _beget_ is the Hiph`il meaning of W-L-D. The Qal meaning is _to give birth _and beget is the corresponding causative (Hiph`il) meaning. What is the reason for understanding _beget_? As YHWH obviously doesn't literally _give birth_, is _beget_ really the next most plausible meaning or wouldn't it rather be _create/make_?


----------



## rushalaim

Is it true, there are two different roots: *wld* and *yld*?


----------



## berndf

mrsonic said:


> when the polytheists use the verb for their gods in ancient writings how is it understood?
> christians try to say that the "waladtuka" is not a literal begetting , but i am just trying to understand how the hebrew neighbors would have understood it thats all .


The word also exists in Akkadian with virtually the same range of meanings:
_walādu : *G. to bear (a child) ; to give birth ; to beget ; to produce, create* D. to give birth, beget ; to produce, create ; to act as midwife Dt. to be begotten Š. to cause to give birth N. to get born._
Relevant is the "G" pattern that corresponds to Hebrew Qal.


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Is it true, there are two different roots: *wld* and *yld*?


P-W verbs change in Qal the initial W to Y. The root is still W-L-D and not Y-L-D.


----------



## origumi

berndf said:


> I assume this is Qal. Why not yaladətikha?


Apparently qal, don't know why not the usual conjugation.



> Normally _beget_ is the Hiph`il meaning of W-L-D. The Qal meaning is _to give birth _and beget is the corresponding causative (Hiph`il) meaning. What is the reason for understanding _beget_?


It is both beget and give birth here, I guess. God is neither a male nor a female therefore both may apply. Translated as beget because (1) for whatever reason God is often considered as a (biological) male, and (2) because (the Jews') God doesn't literally give birth. Nevertheless I think the text intentionally uses the qal form (give birth) figuratively.



rushalaim said:


> Is it true, there are two different roots: *wld* and *yld*?


Hebrew (or one of its ancestors?) had started a shift of roots like wld to yld. This shift has never completed. In Hebrew grammar books the root often appears as yld/wld (that is, both. therefore known as גזרת נפי"ו).


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> This shift has never completed.


Additional info: Waw occurring in Hiph`il and huph`al distinguish true P-Y from P-W verbs.


----------



## fdb

Both in Canaanaic and in Aramaic word-initial w- regularly shifts to y-. This affects not only verbs, but all parts of speech , e.g. Akkadian warḫu, but Hebrew yeraḥ, Aramaic yarḥā “month”. The most imporatant exception is the particle wa- “and”. The original w reappears in forms where it is not initial.


----------



## rushalaim

Rabbies give comment on that verse as if on the very day when a new king begins reigning, God declares a king as His son, as if that king is born on that day. God declares *any* new king as His son.


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> I have not mentioned this yet as I am struggling with the verb form. Maybe you can help me. It is yəlidətikha. I assume this is Qal. Why not yaladətikha or yəladətikha (The Schwa after D is to my knowledge na`and not nakh in classical recital; don't know why)? Normally _beget_ is the Hiph`il meaning of W-L-D. The Qal meaning is _to give birth _and beget is the corresponding causative (Hiph`il) meaning. What is the reason for understanding _beget_? As YHWH obviously doesn't literally _give birth_, is _beget_ really the next most plausible meaning or wouldn't it rather be _create/make_?



In Biblical Hebrew the Qal form of the verb w/y-l-d means both “give birth to” (of a woman) and “beget” (of a man). This is true regardless of whether the subject is a divine or a mortal being. You can convince yourself of this by looking at any of the genealogical lists, for example Gen. 11:10 sqq.

Arabic walada has the same two meanings.


----------



## Ihsiin

In Arabic the causative form أولد means "to impregnate".


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> In Biblical Hebrew the Qal form of the verb w/y-l-d means both “give birth to” (of a woman) and “beget” (of a man). This is true regardless of whether the subject is a divine or a mortal being. You can convince yourself of this by looking at any of the genealogical lists, for example Gen. 11:10 sqq.


Thank you, that solves the puzzle for me. Is the separation of base and causative meaning (Qal vs. Hiph`il) a later development or was it just never strict, i.e. speaker didn't bother distinguishing the two, if by context (a male) only _beget _is meaningful?


----------



## rushalaim

Why Pentateuch uses two different words?
May *וָלָד* be a nursing _"babe"_ (Genesis 11:30), but when he is 2 years old he is a _"child"_ *יֶּלֶד* (Genesis 21:8)?


----------



## origumi

In Modern Hebrew yéled is child (H3206) and walád is newborn (H2056). This distinction may have been blurry in Biblical Hebrew.


----------

