[b-hebrew] MI- nouns
pporta7 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 4 13:04:19 EST 2010
>> You bring here six words... but only one matches my question: MB+), a
>> utterance. Here M = MI.
> I know that you read the unpointed Tanakh as you think that massoretic
vowels may be wrong and they do not belong, strictly speaking, to the
biblical text itself but are something added and somewhat artificial.
Some of the times there is no question but that the points definitely are
wrong. That is why I stopped using them.
OK. But... the non use of the traditional pointing is a thing and nearly
despising the vowels is another thing.
Maybe we could summarize this in the following way:
-Is the vowel system of the HB perfect? -Definitely, NO
-Is the vowel system in the HB something banal that can be put aside without
any consideration? -Definitely NO.
> I understand that position of yours.
> But maybe you should reconsider this, Karl.
> Your answer to my post shows quite clearly that you mix M-, MA- and MI- as
> being all of them the same thing or, maybe, variants of the same thing.
Until shown otherwise by context or meaning, I see no reason to consider
them other than as variants of the same thing.
>From my answer, you see that I made a distinction between this use and the
M- prefix from MN, so that’s not the question.
Let us take an English example. We have the suffix -S which applies to most
nouns to have their plural: dog > dogS, house > houseS... and applies also
to the 3rd person singular Present of most verbs: I think > he thinkS, I eat
> she eatS...
Would you say that the -S in the verb form is nothing but a variant of the
-S of plural of nouns?
If we compare "he eatS" with "he goES" ... then yes, then we could say that
-ES is a variant fo the more usual -S, which variant is used for verbs
ending in some vowels (go, do...) or in some given consonants (cross, mix,
But... -ES of the verb form is by no means a variant of the usual suffix -S
of common plurals. 'S' is here a coincidence, not a variant.
> Now, while M- and MA- are the prefixes of, respectively, the Pi'el and the
> Hiph'il Participles, this is not the case of MI-
> MI- (I mean mem with hiriq), indeed, is never used for participles of any
> type. It is true that in some instances (Lv 14:4; Nm 7:89 and maybe in a
> others) MI- is found for Hithpa'el Participle ---> but the reason is that
> comes with verbs having dalet, tet or tav for their first root consonant
> here the usual Hithpa'el prefix MIT- changes to MI- for ear reasons.
There is no reason to accept that those are hithpael participles, neither
from the context nor meaning.
I do not understand what you mean, Karl.
Let us take an example: as regards Ez 2:2 we could say or think that maybe
the Massoretes were mistaken and should have written the word we find in Gn
27:6: MDBR and not MIDBR.
But this is not the case for the word Lv 14:4: MI+HR... Would you say that
in Lv 14:4 M+HR is (or could be) a Pi'el participle as we find it in Mal
> In other words, we have to distinguish CAREFULLY between prefixes MA-,
MF-, M"-, ME-, MI-, MO- and MU-
Seeing as how Tanakh was written only with consonants, we don’t know if
these various prefixes existed in Biblical Hebrew, and if they did, whether
or not they made a difference in meaning. Nor do we know if the Masoretes
accurately transcribed the sounds.
The section in Job 12 starts in verse 12, where the subject is given. You
need to read in context. MGLH in verse 22 is a participle, referring to the
action taken by the subject of the section, named in verse 12.
> Now, words with prefix MI- are ONLY nouns -and no more Participles used as
> nouns- and that is why I put my initial question on the meaning of this
Well, you have my answer that I think you are making a mountain out of a
molehill. Beyond my answer, someone else may have a different answer. Let’s
I do not think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. Of course we may
wait for other answers, but in the meanwhile... the debate is open.
As a general line, context helps a lot, true: here you're quite right. But
context does not solve everything.
Let us suppose English is written only with consonants. And we come across a
text that tells on a monastery where "Jhn, wh ws mnk n hs ffts, ws th prfct
Maybe we could guess that this is "John, who was (a) monk in his fifties,
was the...". From now on we can think we have a doubled or repeated word:
But... by our studies we know that in English there is prefix per- and
prefix pre- (and also prefix pro- and also prefix peri- and also prefix
para-) All these five are spelled exactly the same if we do not use vowels:
pr -------> the five would be spelled "PR" but..... even so their meaning is
quite different from one another.
At applying our knowledge of prefixes of Latin or Greek origin, we can
soundly think that our sentence tells about John being the PERfect PREfect
for the community of monks in the monastery.
Do you agree?
If yes, the same for the Hebrew text: MA- is quite different from ME-; ME-
is quite different from MI-; MI- is quite different from MO-
In your favor: MO- is but a variant of MU-: for instance, the word MO(MD (1K
22:35) is quite the same thing as MU(MD (this not in the Bible)
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
More information about the b-hebrew