Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Micah 4:1-2a                      Isaiah 2:2-3a

w:hfyfh b.:)ax:ariyt hay.fmiym    w:hfyfh b.:)ax:ariyt hay.fmiym
yih:yeh har b."yt-y:hwfh          nfkown yih:yeh har b."yt-y:hwfh
nfkown b:ro)$ hehfriym            b:ro)$ hehfriym
w:ni&.f) hw.) mig.:bf(owt         w:ni&.f) mig.:bf(owt
w:nfx:arw. (flfyw (am.iym         w:nfx:arw. )"lfyw kfl-hag.owiym
w:hfl:kw. g.owiym rab.iym         w:hfl:kw. (am.iym rab.iym
w:)fm:rw.                         w:)fm:rw.

WTS defined W:NI&.F) as "verb niphal participle masculine singular" in 
both cases, but the same form could also be "verb niphal perfect 3rd 
masculine singular", i.e. a "weqatal" form, as in EXO 25:28; 2KI 
20:17; ISA 39:6; 52:13; DAN 11:12. Note that the following verbs are 
also weqatal; and so I think it reasonable to take W:NI&.F) as 
weqatal, not a participle at all. Does that help? Does it make any 
difference whether this is a participle or a weqatal? NFKOWN is 
similarly ambiguous, but would be an improbable "qatal" form if verbal 
not participial (and oddly enough this form is quite common as a 
participle but not found in the masculine singular as a finite verb). 
I would suggest that a participle NFKOWN is appropriate with the 
meaning "continue to be established" but not so approriate for 
W:NI&.F) as there is just one raising up. But then what about the 
following weqatal's: are they one future event e.g. one day when this 
will happen, or do they indicate that people will continue to stream, 
to come, and to say?

I can only guess that Isaiah felt that Micah's version was ambiguous 
(it could mean "There will be a mountain of the Lord; it has been 
established as chief of the mountains...") and so clarified things by 
putting the ambiguous NFKOWN with its auxiliary.

Another thought: Maybe Isaiah was adjusting the metre to make better 
poetry: Micah has regular three beat lines and then the intrusive  
W:)FM:RW., whereas Isaiah has a 3-4-4-3-4 pattern (putting the two 
short lines together). Actually that line structure suggests a 
different parallel of B:RO)$ with W:NI&.F) and tends back to the 
latter being a participle.

So maybe this is tied up with philosophical debates even if you didn't 
intend that.

I don't think I have answered your question, but at least I have given 
food for thought!

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Periphrastics in Is 2:2 and Micah 4:1 (retransmission)
Author:  zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph at internet
Date:    29/01/1999 18:39


Rolf, don't feel so alone with the lack of responses that you 
mentioned in your post, "Different verb forms - same meaning?"  I 
also have received no responses to my posting on what looks like 
periphrastics, and my question was not even part of a search for 
resolution of a great philosophical debate.  It was simply a 
request for clause-level analysis of a couple of passages.

I wrote:

> It appears to me that the YiHYeH ... NfKoWN ... W:Ni&&f) in Micah 
> 4:1 is a
> compound periphrastic.  The parallel passage in Is 2:2 has the 
> first participle
> preceding the yiqtol.  Generally I interpret this periphrastic as 
> clearly placing the durative concept of the participle in future 
> time and a distribution of the yiqtol of HfYfH over both
> participles [hence "compound"].  (I could be all wet here, but I 
> don't think so.  We see a
> similar construction in Ex 26:3.  Of course, I would have liked 
> to have seen a qatal + participle in Ex 36:10, but there's a
> wayyiqtol instead.)  My question:  Can a periphrastic
> construction have the participle *precede* the "helping verb," as 
> appears to be the case in Is 2:2?  If so, what is the
> significance?  Is it focussing (or, to use Bryan's terminology, 
> topicalizing) the activity expressed by the participle?
>
> Also, in the Micah passage, for this to be periphrastic, we have 
> the verb and the first participle split by the subject.  Now, I 
> realize
> this is a common construction in Greek, but isn't it unusual in 
> the Hebrew?  What significance do you make of the Micah
> construction?
>

Many of you responded to another post on the cohortative form of 
3rd-he verbs, and I thank you for that.  (I'll admit that that 
one *was* written with a small bit of an agenda, although it also 
was an honest attempt to verify the identification of the form. 
Bryan, you stole my thunder by the points you made that discourse 
analysis clearly identified a form which was completely ambiguous 
on word level, and still unclear on clause level.)

Any help on the periphrastic question would be appreciated.

Paul
--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran 
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph