Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Ecc 12:6: BWR

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: <pporta AT oham.net>
  • To: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>, "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ecc 12:6: BWR
  • Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 05:05:24 +0200

It is not me, Karl, who rules out the Niphal use of RWC. Dictionaries or
lexicons I have at hand --of biblical Hebrew as well as of modern Hebrew-
are ruling it out.
Is it possible that, as regards this issue, these dictionaries are
mistaken?

Pere


The short answer, "Yes."

The long answer, as I indicated in my last message, is that if RWC can be
used in a transitive manner, then the niphal is possible.

To give another example:

"He rolls on the floor" intransitive use, equivalent to qal.

"He rolls the ball" transitive use, equivalent to qal.
________________

(PP)

Karl,
from a Hebrew viewpoint,

1. For the first sentence you are mistaken:

"He rolls on the floor", autotransitive use, equivalent to HITHPOLEL
Look at point 2. in www.oham.net/out/IS-t1/IS-t1.065.html

1. For the latter sentence you are mistaken:

"He rolls the ball", transitive use, equivalent to HIPHIL
Look at point B. in www.oham.net/out/P-d/P-d055.html

__________

(KR)

"The ball is rolled" transitive use, actor not mentioned, equivalent to
niphal.
___________

(PP)

(Always from a Hebrew viewpoint)

Wrong.
"The ball is rolled" > "The ball is caused to roll" ----- Huphal (not Niphal)
Look at A. in www.oham.net/out/P-t/P-t347.html

Heartly,

Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)



Because "roll" can be used in a transitive manner, the passive (niphal) is
possible. If RWC can be used in a transitive manner, i.e. with an object,
then the passive (niphal) is possible.

As for the possibility that dictionaries are mistaken, the reason I got into
lexicography was because as I was reading Tanakh, I came across examples
where the definitions given in the dictionaries I had at the time (Gesenius,
BDB) did not match the context of the text that I was reading. Some of the
times I came to the realization that the dots indicating vocalizations are
wrong, some of the times the only conclusion was that the definitions in the
dictionaries are wrong. But because I was reading only for personal reasons
and not part of scholarly polemic, I did not keep detailed records of those
disagreements.

So the long answer is, "Yes, it is possible that the dictionaries that you
reference are mistaken."

Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
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