[b-hebrew] qatal and qotel
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Fri Aug 19 09:29:21 EDT 2011
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth at gmail.com> wrote:
> > [KR] In this example, the people are looking for the who in the
> whodunnit, which
> would call for the participle ...>
> This starting point is wrong.
> Asking a question of "who" does not mean that an actor or an adjective
> (aka. participle)
> or a "noun" must follow.
> See for example Gen 3:11
> מִ֚י הִגִּ֣יד לְךָ֔ כִּ֥י עֵירֹ֖ם אָ֑תָּה
> That is not what I said. Rather it is the context of Judges that points to
the who of the whodunnit, not merely the question starting with מי MY.
If you look up questions starting with “who”, you will find far more that
are followed by a Yiqtol or Qatal than by a participle. But participles are
found, such as Exodus 10:8, Numbers 23:10, Judges 7:3, 1 Samuel 11:12, 26:6,
Psalm 59:8, Job 38:2, etc. One can’t make a universal statement, rather
needs to look at each on a case by case basis.
(On an unrelated issue, there are Qatal verbs following MY that are in
imperfective, present or future tense contexts. 2 Kings 18:20, Isaiah 36:5,
Job 38:36, 39:5)
> > [KR] Based on another discussion recently, the Masoretes may have
> mispointed this
> verse based on a faulty view of Biblical Hebrew grammar: in other words,
> they pointed it based on grammar imported from another language, rather
> on the grammar that the original writer intended.>
> Your point is not logical:
> you raised a point "they may have ...". So far so good.
> One can always speculate about what might possibly occur.
> But then you conclude "they pointed it ..." without a shred of evidence and
> against the context as pointed out in my post.
I referred to a different post than yours. Namely Nir Cohen’s claim that
Talmudic Hebrew followed Aramaic grammar. I don’t know Aramaic, so I took
his word for it. Do you claim he is wrong?
> [RB] The verb עשה is best as qatal. It refers to a done deed, past, not to
> something that Gid`on is always doing or in the process of doing.
> You may be confusing the effect of the word mi 'who?'. The question word
> does ask "who" did it. But the verb refers back to the previous night's
> events. They were not yet looking for a serial iconoclast.
This is a wrong understanding of the meanings of both Qatal and participle
in Biblical Hebrew usage. There are many times that Qatal is used in a
present to future, imperfective contexts, and there are examples of
participles being used in perfective aspect contexts. So the reasons given
in the above paragraph do not fit Biblical Hebrew.
Those reasons may fit Mishnaic and Talmudic Hebrew, but I don’t know those
> See a similar point made in a following post by Christoph Georg.
> This is BH. This is what needs to inform readers.
> PS: Jud 6:29 may also help you read the ShiloaH inscription. Jud 6:29 is
> a context of cutting, just like ShiloaH, and has the idiom 'a man, his
> to refer to 'each other' (not to cutting tools).
Genesis 15:10 refers to animal parts, not men, so the same use for cutting
tools on the Siloam Inscription. Stop and think a minute: they could hear
pickaxes from several feet apart, workers’ voices not heard even 12–18
> Randall Buth, PhD
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew