Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Translation of Piel (and Pual) roots(Bryan)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Bryan Rocine" <brocine AT earthlink.net>
  • To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Translation of Piel (and Pual) roots(Bryan)
  • Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 21:20:07 -0500


Hi Bill, You wrote:

> I am wondering about the Waltke and O'Connor book you
mentioned. Would it be a good
> book for me to get concerning the BH stem system or is
there a better one?

I think it would be excellent. It is a reference grammar
written in the nineties with the great benefit of extensive
notations and bibliography that can guide you into further
study. Since it is a reference grammar, it covers a great
deal many more subjects than only the stem system. Another
excellent reference grammar written recently is the one
mentioned by Randall Buth, written by Christo van der Merwe,
et al.
>
> This brings up another question in my mind. Since some
roots are conjugated in
> several stems, and since the consonantal letters for some
words are the same in
> various conjugations when the word appears in different
stems, and since the vowel
> markings in the text did not show up till the Massorites,
how did they determine which
> stem markings to put with which word in the text.
>

Context and pronunciation tradition. Context could be used
to distinguish beteen identically appearing words the same
as we do when we distinguish between *read* pronounced
/reed/ and *read* pronounced /red/.

An interesting case in BH to me, wherein I might guess
tradition played a key role is with verb forms of the root
'HB. There is no difference in appearance in a purely
consonantal text between a Qal of 'HB meaning "like" or
"love" and a Piel meaning "lust after" except for the
participle. The Masoretes pointed every verbform except 16
participles as Qal. The 16 Piel participles attested are
unavoidable when pointing the consonantal text because of
the preformed mem. Why didn't the Masoretes recognize at
least one Piel verb of 'HB besides the 16 unavoidable
participles? Could it have been a sort of censorship of the
text by tradition, eliminating language thought to be
impolite or too suggestive? Might context not have dictated
concerning Samson, _vay:'aheb 'ishah benaxal soreq_ instead
of _vayye'ehab_?

Shalom,
Bryan


B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

(office) 315.437.6744
(home) 315.479.8267





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page