Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Qal Passives vs. Pual suffix & Hophal prefix forms

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "A. Philip Brown II" <pbrown AT GBS.EDU>
  • To: "BHebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Qal Passives vs. Pual suffix & Hophal prefix forms
  • Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:54:20 -0400

Shalom,

Waltke-O'Conner argue that Pual suffix forms where the Piel and Hithpael of
the root are either unattested or attested only in a different sense and
that Hophal prefix forms where the Hiphil of the root is unattested or
attested only in a different sense are actually Qal passives (W-O, 22.6a).
They also note "various resulting asymmetries (e.g., Pual suffix forms and
Hophal prefix forms from the same root in the same sense) suggest the
existence of a Qal passive stem, as do the semantics of the forms."

Are there other more objective grounds for rejecting the Massoretic pointing
of such Pual suffix / Hophal prefix forms?

Does the lack of attestation in extant Biblical Hebrew actually warrant
their conclusions?

Thanks for your input.

Philip Brown
Cincinnati, OH




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page