Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Resh: To be Guttural or not to be Guttural - that is the Question!

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Resh: To be Guttural or not to be Guttural - that is the Question!
  • Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:09:00 -0500

I didn't get your last post before I submitted mine.
I just got done reading it.

I don't have access to GKC.

I have found some other Resh with a dagesh in them:
1 Sam 1:6
1 Sam 10:24
1 Sam 17:25
Just to name a few.

So this brings me to my question:
How do you know?

By looking at a root, how can you tell how the Resh is to be handled?
Is there a system or method, or is it just haphazard?

Very befuddling.


B"H
John Steven

"If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave."
-Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.


Harold Holmyard wrote:

Dear John,

Well I believe I found my answer.

I called up my Hebrew professor from college and asked him.

What he said was that the Resh is not a guttural letter, but since it can't take a dagesh it is sometimes treated like one.
Hence words with a Resh in the 'Ayin position in the Pi'el and Pu'al forms are categorized as 'Ayin Guttural.
The reason my grammar book classified KRT as a strong verb is because it isn't found in either Pi'el or Pu'al forms in the Bible.

So if anyone disagrees with this, or finds any fault in the explanation, please do respond.
If anyone agrees and thinks that it is right on the money, then please respond as well.


HH: I already gave you my response. You are incorrect above, because KRT does occur in the Pual twice, as I stated. But it apparently is an exception in that it does not handle the resh as similar verbs like BRK. BRK omits the normal strengthening of the second consonant and instead lengthens the previous vowel. KRT, although it does have the Pual, does not fail to strengthen the resh. There is actually a dagesh dot in the resh of one Pual form of KRT (see Ezek 16:4). Did you not understand my post, or do you not have access to Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (GKC) that discusses these things?

Yours,
Harold Holmyard



B"H
John Steven

"If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave."
-Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.


Harold Holmyard wrote:


Dear John,




I don't think that's the answer, as the word KRT is classified as a Strong Verb.

So we have:
$MR - Strong
KRT - Strong
BRK - 'Ayin Guttural



Perhaps KRT is not viewed as being affected much by the changes that the resh is capable of bringing. BRK, however, is greatly affected because it has a large Piel usage. GKC says that the guttural verbs are really a variant of the strong verb, because the modifications required by the gutturals only affect the vowelization, not the consonants. The grammar adds that the only real weakness with guttural verbs is the entire omission of the strengthening in some of the middle-guttural verbs. This does happen with BRK, but surprisingly it does not seem to happen with KRT. GKC lists a couple of KRT forms as exceptions to this loss of strengthening of the second guttural. And there are only a couple of relevant KRT forms, since it does not have a Piel and only has these two forms in the Pual. Nor does it have the Hithpael. So perhaps that explains the difference in classification of the two verbs.
See GKC #62 and 64e.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page