[b-hebrew] Haggai 2:7 and Isaiah 41:22

Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Mon Nov 20 12:42:53 EST 2006

K Randolph wrote:
>> > Harold, what do you do with the plural verb for that subject?
>> > Remember, the waw for the fem. plural was optional and the Masoretic
>> > pointing was off often enough so we should take it only as a
>> > suggestion, so would not the context indicate a plural?

>> HH: I am unsure what you are talking about when you speak of a waw for
>> the feminine plural of the verb ...
> Noun, not verb.

HH: Oh, so you mean an internal waw. Sure, you can repoint the noun. 
That's what I've said all along.
>> ... being optional. Obviously the verb is
>> masculine in Hag 2:7.
> It is a Qal perfective common plural, i.e. it can take either masc. or
> fem. subjects.

HH: Right. My mistake, but this does not bear on the argument.

>> ... Perhaps you mean that it was optional for feminine
>> words to take a masculine plural verb. Yes, that is true. As for the
>> rest of your question, please read through the thread. I have accepted
>> from the start that the verb is plural and suggests a plural. Steve is
>> arguing that one can account for the plural by supposing that "desire"
>> refers to God, and since God sometimes refers to Himself in terms of
>> "us," Steve thinks that "desire" can take a plural verb for that reason.
>> The entire argument is unacceptable to me.
> The theological perspective should be considered only after all
> linguistic questions have been answered, and in this case, the
> grammatical structure and context indicate that the subject is not
> God.

HH: Except that Steve is arguing on those very grounds (the
grammatical structure and context) that the subject is God.
> In this context, we have a plural verb with a fem. subject in
> construct hence ending with a tau. However, the waw indicating that
> this is a plural fem. noun is optional,

HH: Right. You want to repoint the noun.
> so the noun can be either
> sing. or plural. 

HH: Yes, if you repoint it.

> The context of the plural verb indicates plurality
> for the noun.

HH: Yes, we agree on that.
> The Masoretic pointing is wrong.

HH: It might be, but the noun might be a collective taking a plural verb 
(GKC #145).

Harold Holmyard

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list