Biblical Hebrew Forum

["A. Philip Brown II" <pbrown AT GBS.EDU>]

Shalom,

Waltke-O'Conner argue that Pual suffix forms where the Piel and Hithpael of
the root are either unattested or attested only in a different sense and
that Hophal prefix forms where the Hiphil of the root is unattested or
attested only in a different sense are actually Qal passives (W-O, 22.6a).
They also note "various resulting asymmetries (e.g., Pual suffix forms and
Hophal prefix forms from the same root in the same sense) suggest the
existence of a Qal passive stem, as do the semantics of the forms."

Are there other more objective grounds for rejecting the Massoretic pointing
of such Pual suffix / Hophal prefix forms?

Does the lack of attestation in extant Biblical Hebrew actually warrant
their conclusions?

Thanks for your input.

Philip Brown
Cincinnati, OH