Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George F Somsel <gfsomsel AT juno.com>]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:38:03 -0500 Karyn Traphagen
<karyn AT birchbarkstudio.com> writes:
> On Feb 25, 2005, at 7:47 PM, Maurice A. O'Sullivan wrote:
> 
> However, my current concern is not with how the pointing helps (or 
> doesn't help) with pronunciation (choose whatever period you 
> prefer). 
> Neither is the issue with translation, I agree that context is the 
> standard for navigating ambiguity.  My problem is with explaining 
> grammatically the pointing that we actual have. In other words, I 
> need 
> to be able to justify why a verb "looks" the way it does. Now 
> typically 
> I can explain how it differs from an expected strong verb pattern by 
> 
> various weak verb patterns, accent shifts, presence of gutterals, 
> etc. 
> However, I am at a loss for where to turn when I, for example, 
> expect a 
> segol and I see a qamats, or I expect a dagesh and it just isn't 
> there 
> (with no compensatory lengthening anywhere in sight) ... and usually 
> 
> just saying "that's the way it is" isn't satisfactory (although, I 
> recognize that in some cases that will just be the way it is). Let 
> me 
> give an example.
> 
>  From Ruth 2 vs 2 we have the verb _wa'alaqotah_ (I probably don't 
> have 
> the transliteration accurate... the word is: waw-patach--aleph-hataf 
> 
> patach--lamed-patach--qof-hataf qamats--tet-qamats--heh) No dagesh. 
> The 
> verb is parsed as a Piel cohortative. I don't expect this pointing 
> with 
> a Piel stem! Where is the dagesh in the middle root? The BHQ has a 
> dagesh in the tet. Why?
*************************************************************************
******
TEXT

WaT.o)MeR RW.T HaM.oW):aBiY.fH )eL_Nf(:fMiY )"L:CfH_N.fH Ha%.fDeH
Wa):aLaQ:f+fH Ba$.iB.:fLiYM )aXaR ):a$eR )eM:Cf)_X"N B.("YNfYN WaT.o)MeR
LfH. L:CiY BiT.iY

)"L:CfH_NfH is not a Piel but a Qal cohortative of HLK which sometimes
behaves as though it were from YLK.  This explains the sere under the
aleph and the NfH joined by a maqqeph to it.

*************************************************************************
****** 
> Or Ruth 1:18 the first word of the verse _watere'_ which is a Qal 
> Imperfect 3fs of r'h. How do we get the sere and segol? (on this one 
> 
> our professor did put together a presentation to help us see the 
> historical development that led to this form).
> 
> So, my quest for where to turn for resources remains. When my 
> current 
> arsenal of patterns and explanations falls short, where can I go to 
> try 
> to track down the "why" for the pointing?
> 
> Karyn Traphagen
> WTS, Philadelphia
*************************************************************************
*****

WaT."Re)

This is a waw consequtive as attested by the dagesh in the Tet.  There is
an accent shift because of this which accounts for the vowels. 

In regard to resources, I would suggest Gesenius' _Hebrew Grammar_ .  The
BDB lexicon is also frequently helpful (at least in identifying an
unusual form if not in explaining it).

george
gfsomsel
___________
>From mauros AT iol.ie  Sat Feb 26 12:50:42 2005
Return-Path: <mauros AT iol.ie>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail1.mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [193.120.142.151])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68ACF4C006
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:50:42 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from dialup227.ts523.cwt.esat.net ([194.165.172.227]
        helo=Maurice.iol.ie) by mail1.mail.iol.ie with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #9)
        id 1D565P-0002bs-00; Sat, 26 Feb 2005 17:50:40 +0000
Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.2.20050226165953.025b34b0 AT pop.iol.ie>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 17:31:02 +0000
To: Karyn Traphagen <karyn AT birchbarkstudio.com>
From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros AT iol.ie>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] weak verb reference
In-Reply-To: <733bb17fa06b54dd7770e6cd3ebd39f0 AT birchbarkstudio.com>
References: <20050225214454.1C75E4BDAB AT ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com>
        <6.2.0.14.2.20050226004259.03efa9d0 AT pop.iol.ie>
        <733bb17fa06b54dd7770e6cd3ebd39f0 AT birchbarkstudio.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 17:50:42 -0000

At 15:38 26/02/2005, Karyn Traphagen wrote:

>Where is the dagesh in the middle root? The BHQ has a dagesh in the tet. Why?

Karyn:
Here you are into the complex field of textual witnesses.BHS has no dagesh, 
either in the qoph or in the tet.

In the case of the dagesh in the middle radical, turn to p.53 of Gesenius' 
Grammar, and you will find that the qoph _has_ a dagesh.
You will also find a reference to this example on p.171 where Gesenius goes 
back as far as  David Kimchi [ a.k.a Radak ] who  "  with whom Delitzsch 
agrees, explains the form as Piel, with an irregular hataf qamats for a 
hataf patach, as in the reading of Ru. 2:2

So you can at least console yourself with the thought that discussion of 
this point goes back eight centuries <g>

As to your citing of BHQ I am surprised that you haven't checked the 
critical apparatus at the bottom of the page -- this shows that the editor 
has chosen to use the version seen in the Leningrad Codex but by adding > 
(err) < acknowledging that "  this communicates a judgement that the origin 
of a reading is to be found in a mistake on the part of the ancient copyist 
" ( page XC ). Furthermore, the crit. app. tells us that a reading with a 
dagesh in the qoph but none in the tet is to found in the Aleppo Codex and 
in the Cambridge University Add. Ms. 1753.

Regards,


Maurice A. O'Sullivan
[Bray, Ireland]
mauros AT iol.ie

"Mere description is impossible. Language forces you to an implicit
comment." C.S. Lewis