Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

K Randolph wrote:
> > > Harold, what do you do with the plural verb for that subject?
> > > Remember, the waw for the fem. plural was optional and the Masoretic
> > > pointing was off often enough so we should take it only as a
> > > suggestion, so would not the context indicate a plural?

> > HH: I am unsure what you are talking about when you speak of a waw for
> > the feminine plural of the verb ...
>
> Noun, not verb.

HH: Oh, so you mean an internal waw. Sure, you can repoint the noun. 
That's what I've said all along.
> > ... being optional. Obviously the verb is
> > masculine in Hag 2:7.
>
> It is a Qal perfective common plural, i.e. it can take either masc. or
> fem. subjects.

HH: Right. My mistake, but this does not bear on the argument.

> > ... Perhaps you mean that it was optional for feminine
> > words to take a masculine plural verb. Yes, that is true. As for the
> > rest of your question, please read through the thread. I have accepted
> > from the start that the verb is plural and suggests a plural. Steve is
> > arguing that one can account for the plural by supposing that "desire"
> > refers to God, and since God sometimes refers to Himself in terms of
> > "us," Steve thinks that "desire" can take a plural verb for that reason.
> > The entire argument is unacceptable to me.
>
> The theological perspective should be considered only after all
> linguistic questions have been answered, and in this case, the
> grammatical structure and context indicate that the subject is not
> God.

HH: Except that Steve is arguing on those very grounds (the
grammatical structure and context) that the subject is God.
> In this context, we have a plural verb with a fem. subject in
> construct hence ending with a tau. However, the waw indicating that
> this is a plural fem. noun is optional,

HH: Right. You want to repoint the noun.

> so the noun can be either
> sing. or plural. 

HH: Yes, if you repoint it.

> The context of the plural verb indicates plurality
> for the noun.

HH: Yes, we agree on that.
> The Masoretic pointing is wrong.

HH: It might be, but the noun might be a collective taking a plural verb 
(GKC #145).

Yours,
Harold Holmyard
>