Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<pporta AT oham.net>]

> > 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