Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Dear Yaakov:

On Nov 26, 2007 12:55 PM, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s AT rad.com> wrote:
>
> Karl
>
> > This is a participle, part of a subordinate clause. The whole phrase
> is:
> > מחשׂף הלבן אשׁר על־המקלות
> > MX&P HLBN  )$R (L HVQLWT
> > making bare the white which was upon the sticks.
>
> Which is, as I said originally, what the classic commentators say
> (GYLWY).
>
> This is certainly a possibility, and being a participle explains why
> there is no "et" as one would expect from other verb forms.
>
> But do you agree with the massoretic vocalization with a "holam haser" ?
>
No. I take this to be a piel participle, in which case it should have
different pointing. Even if I am wrong and it is a different binyan,
it still would not have the holam.

> I can't think of any other examples of the grammatical form M--O-
> used in this way.
>
>
> Yaakov (J) Stein

On the whole, the Masoretes did a remarkable job in adding the points.
But like any human activity, they were not perfect and occasional
mistakes slipped in. This appears to be one of them.

I am not the only one who thinks that the Masoretes for the most part
simply transcribed the sounds they heard in the readings, and
sometimes the pronunciation tradition became corrupted. This could be
one of those. Or maybe a typo from a copyist. The cause of the error
is unimportant, just recognize from the context the meaning.

Karl W. Randolph.