[b-hebrew] Someone knows?

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Wed Apr 20 14:14:07 EDT 2011


On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Good spanner, Karl.
> I think the likelihood is 100 %.

100% what?

> You will ask why, of course.
> Remark:
> 1. In 1S 17:51 we deal with the so called "polel". This is called "polel"
> because of the doubling of the L, namely the third (or last) root consonant
> of every stem.

This is also a yiqtol, so this doesn’t answer your question, yes or no.

>  Polels -and also Hithpolels-  double every last consonant, be it T or
> not.
> There are plenty of examples: in Jb 30:20 we have "wa-titbonen", and you
> will understand (doubling of N), from "byn" (Dn 10:1); "sorer", he turned
> aside (Lm 3:11), from "swr", to turn aside (Is 7:17) ; "uml'lw",  they were
> feeble (Jr 14:2), from "amal", be feeble...

)ML is never found in Tanakh, it is always found as )MLL which has led me to
question, is this one of the few verbs that is a quadriliteral verb?

> 2. In 2Ch 22:11 we haven't a "doubled tau". Yes, from a material point of
> view there are two taus, yes. But the second tau is but the heh suffix of
> the feminine 3rd person singular, which heh becomes tau in the "construct".
> The same, for instance, as in birkaty, my blessing (Is 44:3), from b'rakah,
> blessing (Js 15:19).

Exactly, which is why when I look at Numbers 17:6, I expect to see HMTTM for
MWT with a second person plural suffix.

I realize now that I misstated what I meant, and what I meant was that in 2
Chronicles 22:11, there is the classic, normal conjugation expected for the
context, with a second tau, not the defective one proposed for Numbers 17:6.

Again, in 2 Samuel 1:9, 16, while these are not hiphils, they are conjugated
from MWT where the second tau is the normal conjugation suffix for the use
and context.

> 3. Now, you're right that HMM has HMTM for the Qal Past, 2nd person plural
> masculine: look at Js 6:3 (1st word in the verse): it is from "sabab" (Ez
> 42:19)

HWM also has HMTM for the qatal qal 2nd pers plural.

> With all this, maybe you should review again the stuff.
> Pere Porta
>> Maybe you should update your terminology, as Biblical Hebrew did not have
tense, i.e. past, present, future. Modern Israeli Hebrew does, but that’s a
language that I don’t know. Because the qatal and yiqtol did not act the
same way as tenses do in Indo-European languages, I call them “qatal” and
“yiqtol” so as not to confuse the ideas.

Do you know of any other examples of a verb listed in dictionaries with a
consonant, waw, tau, which conjugate in qatal hiphil without the medial yod
and without a second tau where normal conjugation calls for one? Absent
being able to show a pattern from other verbs that act the same way, why
should I not read it according to normal Biblical Hebrew patterns and assign
different roots to these two examples than MWT? Especially when these
different roots have meanings consistent with their contexts?

Karl W. Randolph.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list