Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Chris and Nel" <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>]

Peter,
I see that it also occurs in Jeremiah 2:27 and 15:10.  Also YaRaSH and ShaAL 
do the same but these latter two can be explained since they have forms with 
the sere in the middle root letter.  So the last two I am not worried about, 
what intrigues me is that we must remember that those grey-headed bearded 
7th or 8th century masoretes were deliberately telling us all that this is 
how these verbs were pronounced then! -- deviating from the normal expected 
rythm of a qal perfect transitive in the peh vav conjugation.  Gesenius's 
reasoning that this attenuation might be explained from the tendency to 
assimilate vowels especially if the initial 'yod' with shewa was pronounced 
as in syriac like 'i', does not add up in THIS particular case.  I have 
another theory that was in part inspired by something that you said below. 
Could it also be?? - that

Peter Kirk wrote:

This looks an interesting case. Numbers 11:12 is similar, but the other
3 examples of YLD qal perfect first person singular have the expected A
vowel. What is odd about Psalm 2:7 and Numbers 11:12 is that the subject
is male. Normally when the subject is a father rather than a mother YLD
is used in the hiphil, which would the I vowel in the second syllable,
but an O vowel in the first syllable. I wonder if this odd form is some
kind of cross between qal and hiphil, introduced perhaps to avoid the
strange idea of a male mother?

Peter Kirk



On 04/10/2006 23:56, Chris and Nel wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> YeLiDTiCHa (Psalm 2:7)
>
> This is not a stative verb by definition, yet it behaves like one in
> conjugation with suffixes, its hireq under the second root letter 
> shortened
> from sere, a middle E or O in the qal being intransitive by nature..
> (according to both Davies and Samuel Tragelles quoting on gesenius, who 
> says
> that there is no need for this). Why was this verb then so pronounced, so
> pointed by the masoretes instead of say like the verb YeDaTiCHa (I know
> you)? I see no reason
> for the logic in the deviation from the expected pronounciation.