[b-hebrew] Song of song 1:7

Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. nir at ccet.ufrn.br
Thu Dec 13 15:22:12 EST 2012


karl, pere,

for some reason my reply to karl did not go through, and so
i am resending it.

1. etymology and root: the verb appears as intransitive, 
followed by (L =upon. this favors the interpretation of the 
root as (W+ and the entire expression L(W+ (L would then 
mean, quite appropriately, to flock upon, to charge upon like 
a bird of prey [(Y+], to pursue.

this, in spite of several translations of (W+YH as "the one who veils",
from the root (+H, which is transitive. for example, MM (mekhon mamre)
translates as "the one who veils" but then translates (L as "besides", which
is not quite natural.

2. grammatical form: the basis is the verb form in third person feminine
present. both roots do not agree with the word (+YH, as we 
would expect (+H to produce (W+H (with or without the waw) and we would expect
(W+ to produce (+H in qamac. the question is, why the extra Y.

3. observe that several LH verb forms in present tense do have 
an extra Y which adds an imperfective, continuous quality to the 
verb: HMH, CPH, BKH give HWMYH, CWPYH, BWKYH etc (are they BH?), 
with XIRIQ (and dagesh?). 
this may be brought as an argument in favor of (+H as the root 
in question, which is also LH.

observe however that in (W+YH the Y is preceded by a shwa, 
and no dagesh. so, it may be grammatically distinct.

4. if one sticks to the (W+ hypothesis (as i do), one either has to extend the
p(lYH form to non-LH verbs, which i am afraid is not documented in BH,
or to assume that the poet has made a slight grammatical error, treating 
the non-LH verb as a LH verb for some poetical reason, e.g. the abovementioned
sense of the imperfective.

5. karl is right: verbs in present tense in BH indeed may be used in non-verb
functions, and are difficult to classify in terms of the accepted 
grammatical function categories. besides, the precise definition here depends
on which root is there: if (+YH is "the one who veils" (no direct 
object specified) it would be a verb noun (a singleton noun group 
describing action). but if (+YH (L is "the one who charges upon" 
(followed by an indirect object) it would be part of a noun group,
or even part of a clause. the notion of BH clause is not identical to
the one used in the grammar books at large.

nir cohen

>>>De: K Randolph <kwrandolph at gmail.com>
Pere:


>>> PERE: It is not a noun, Karl. It is a Qal Participle, 
singular feminine of (+H.

>>>KARL: That’s what the dictionaries say. But I’ve noticed that the majority
of the time what is called a “participle” is actually a noun “the person or
object that is doing such and such an action”.
 
>>>> PERE: It is not from (Y+. Remark that in Song 1:7 the yod comes after the
teth and not before it.

>>>> KARL: I noticed that, but I also noticed that the two times the verb
listed in the dictionary as (Y+ is used, it lacks the yod.
 
>>> It is a variant —rarely appearing in the Tanakh—  of the much more usual
form without the yod:

>>> But the -YH ending is found on several nouns, including: )LYH tail of
sheep, )NYH ship, BYRNYH fortified place, BNYH building, BRYH food to feed
someone, GDYH bank (of river), GWYH body, DWMYH stillness as in rest, HWMYH
commotion, etc. So the form is consistent with a noun. Further, its use within
the verse is consistent with a noun, not a verb. Therefore, is this another
example where tradition is wrong?
  
>>>>    Look at Dt 20:20; Jd 20:31 and Is 49:21 for some instances of this
much common form (lacking yod) of the Qal Participle, singular feminine, of
verbs lamed"heh (or lamed"yod).

>>> The lack of the yod calls into question the validity of these examples in
this question. 




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list