[b-hebrew] Niphal?

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Wed Dec 12 10:37:25 EST 2012


But Pere:

The pointing is wrong often enough as to be untrustworthy.

Secondly, the pointing is based on the tradition as it existed at the time
the points were invented. All that was invented were the points, not the
tradition. How much of that tradition was based on a Mishnaic understanding
of grammar and therefore the points are wrong as far as Biblical Hebrew is
concerned?

Here I’ll throw up a trial balloon expecting it to get shot down: is it
possible that Qal and Niphal were originally coding for perfective aspect,
and Piel and Pual for imperfective? If so, then would not many, many of the
verbal pointings be wrong?

Therefore, what I wrote is accurate as far as the consonantal text is
concerned. Is a rejoinder based on the points even valid?

Karl W. Randolph.

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear list members and specially Karl W. Randolph.
> Yesterday I posted a replay to our friend Karl's question on word "TWRQ"
> that appears in Song 1:3.
> And I wrote that this word can be from verbs peh"yod: Gn 15:15; Am 7:10;
> Ps 45:15
> Karl's replay said that, beside the hophal form, this can also be a Niphal
> form of verbs peh"yod.
> Remark, Karl, that this is not as you say.
> The parallel niphal form of verbs peh"yod appears (as refers to the
> consonants) the same as TWRQ, yes; but it is pointed quite differently:
>
> Look at the last word in Ps 130:4; last word in Is 44:28; and in Dt 7:25
> (tivaqesh)
> The pointing is "i - a - e" and not "w - a".
> Would you not reconsider, Karl, your undervaluing of the masoretic
> pointing?
>
> Heartly,
>
> --
> Pere Porta
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20121212/426de278/attachment.html 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list