Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[6]: The form of weqatal

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[6]: The form of weqatal
  • Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 19:50:35 -0400


Sorry, partly my mistake, I meant to suggest that NIMCF) here could be
Qal "imperfect" 1st person plural. According to BDB this form is not
found, but this would be the correct form as the 3rd person singular
is YIMCF). It is presumably a mistake in BDB to list 2 Samuel 7:12
(where this verb is not found) rather than 17:12 as an occurrence of
the Niphal. Holladay's lexicon does not list this reference; you are
apparently referring to the form NOWTAR rather than NIMCF). The Hiphil
"imperfect" form here would surely be something like NAMCIY), so can
hardly be relevant to the pointed text here; and the meaning of the
Hiphil "cause to find" is hard to fit here. Your Qal meaning is
possible, as the object is similarly dropped after ):A$ER in an idiom
in Jdg 9:33, 1 Samuel 10:7, 25:8.

As for your "can you expand on this", I mean to say this: In all
languages there are pairs of morphemes (especially word roots, but in
principle the same can surely happen with affixes) which have the same
or very similar form but different meanings. From etymological
research we can sometimes, but not always, determine which of these
pairs are homonyms in the sense that originally different forms have
converged because of phonological changes, and which are in fact
derived from the same root but have acquired different meanings by
processes of semantic change. But where the etymological evidence is
insufficient (as may often be the case with biblical Hebrew), my point
is that it is impossible to tell which of these two is the case with a
particular pair of morphemes. That is correct, surely? I suspect that
the alleged two meanings of W:- (and of HA-?) fall into this category,
that there is simply not enough evidence to determine whether they are
variant meanings of one original morpheme or originally separate
morphemes which have almost completely fallen together in form but not
in meaning.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[5]: The form of weqatal
Author: dwashbur AT nyx.net at internet
Date: 22/07/1999 15:28


Peter wrote:
> The Westminster database parses NIMCA' in 2 Samuel 17:12 as "verb,
> nifal, perfect, third person, masculine, singular". And with good
> reason, I think. If this were indeed a qal YIQTOL 2nd person plural,
> surely there should be an object "him", either a suffix on the verb or
> 'ITTO, as the qal verb is transitive and 'ASHER does not act as an
> object, in fact (as I showed a few months ago) plays no syntactic role
> in the subordinate relative clause but functions syntactically as part
> of the main clause.

There doesn't necessarily need to be an explicit object, since the
clause is focusing on the location, not the person. And Holladay
lists it as a hiph`il imperfect 1 pl. I'm not sure who suggested qal
3rd person, but it wasn't me.

<snip>

But then is
> there a discernible difference (synchronically) between two homonym
> WE-'s and two uses of the same morpheme which have developed separate
> meanings?

Um, can you expand on this a little for me?

<snip>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page