Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Chris,

> Please could someone clear up a minor confusion for me, OR a mistake on my
> part!
>
> Weingreen (Oxford Hebrew Grammar) writes: "It will be understood that ONLY
> the active verbs can take suffixes, niphal, pual, hophal and hitpael are
> passives/reflexives and cannot govern an object..." he then proceeds to make
> ONLY ONE exception (an infinitive construct, 'his being burned).
>
> I read then prov 2:22 and discover a NIPHAL with a suffix.  i then proceed
> to check in Shoshan's concordance and lo and behold --  loads more niphals
> with suffixes.  gesenius also mentions prov 2:22 as being a passive
> consttuction sentence.
>
> What have I missed????


HH: There is no Niphal suffix in Prov 2:22. That is a third plural 
ending of the verb.

                                Yours,
                                Harold Holmyard