Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 3/9/07, Uri Hurwitz wrote:

>    Well, this is wrong on two counts:
>
>    Gen 18:4  --  the root LQX appears mostly in Qal, however
>  15 different occurrences of this root are attested in the Pual;
>  most of them in the perfect - the Lamed intact, dagesh forte in
>  the middle letter of the root as is standard, though no root
>  letter is missing in the perfect.
>
>     There is no sense to ask why the root is not attested in Piel
>  because we have no way of addressing this question to ancient
>  speakers, scribes or editors.

Just because it is vocalized the same as a Pual doesn't mean that
it is (or was meant originally) as a pual.  True, we can't address this
question to the ancient speakers, scribes or editors, but we can use
the evidence we do have to study the texts.

>     Pere's second question is about YUQQAM , Gen 4:24. This is
>  clearly derived from the root NQM, to take revenge, as a glance in the verse 
> and
>  its context makes clear. This is one of three attested cases of
>  the root in Pual, and the dagesh forte, again, is standard.

The nun would not be assimilated in the pual prefix forms.

>    As for passive Qal, what is meant is really the passive
> participle,though occurrences in other tenses  - or aspects! -
> canot be ruled out. I say this because in Arabic, where there is the
>  equivalent of Niphal - ")Infa(ala" -, a passive form of Qal
>  does also exists.

No, that is not what is meant by passive Qal.  The passive Qal is also
present in Amarna, including for the root lqx.  See also here:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-February/031492.html
and the links cited there.  I also refer you to Daniel Sivan's "Grammatical
Analysis and Glossary of the West Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts
of the 15th-13th C.B.C from Canaan and Syria" for a discussion of the
Qal passive in the Amarna and related texts (p. 169 - 171).

Yitzhak Sapir