Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<pporta AT oham.net>]

Dear Karl,
our friend Kenneth was not quite mistaken at saying that the word in Mic 
5:1is a Hoph'al Participle, singular feminine.

You write:
> It is not a hophal present tense feminine, that is a modern Hebrew
> construct, not Biblical Hebrew. Nor is it based on hophal, the waw > 
> instead of the yod when conjugated or in derived words is common > among 
> peh-yod verbs, as is YC), without it being hophal.

We find in Gn 38:25 a quite near word to that in question (the second word 
in the verse). And it is JUST Hophal Participle, singular feminine (or 
Huphal, if you prefer).
So we must be very careful and think twice of it before we write such a 
sentence as that of yours:
> It is not a hophal present tense feminine, that is a modern Hebrew
> construct, NOT BIBLICAL Hebrew.
(Capitals are mine)

Things like this, though understandable from a human point of view
(every human being --even me, Pere-- is subject to be mistaken), are likely 
to cause a deep feeling of confusion on those who, so to say, are beginners 
in biblical Hebrew study. Remember that you and me (and all!) were some day 
beginners in biblical Hebrew study.

Quite heartly,

Pere Porta
Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Micah 4:8 and 5:1


> Kenneth:
> It was a wild guess, and no, I don't think it can be supported.
>
> First Micah 4:8:
>
> Looking at the context of verse 7, we see that YHWH will be king over them
> in Mount Zion, then in verse 8 the Tower Eder, protrusion of the daughter 
> of
> Zion, is named, then the subjects of the next sentences are its adornments
> and the first rulership which will come to the daughter of Zion.
>
> Micah 5:1:
>
> The word you question, מוצאת MWC)T is found only here in Tanakh as a noun
> referring to an action. That it is feminine is a function of grammar, not 
> of
> the identity of what the action is connected to. In this case, the action
> refers to where he came from, namely his origin.
>
> It is not a hophal present tense feminine, that is a modern Hebrew
> construct, not Biblical Hebrew. Nor is it based on hophal, the waw instead
> of the yod when conjugated or in derived words is common among peh-yod
> verbs, as is YC), without it being hophal.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 5:55 AM, kenneth greifer 
> <greifer AT hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Could Micah 5:1 say "...from you (Bethlehem-Ephrata) to Me, he will go
> > forth to be ruler, and his caused to go forth ones (feminine) are from 
> > the
> > past, from days of old?"
> >
> > Maybe instead of "his origins" or "his goings forth" it says "his caused 
> > to
> > go forth ones (hophal present tense feminine).
> >
> > In Micah 4:8, it says that the daughter of Zion and a kingdom will come 
> > to
> > Migdal Eder, which I think is near Bethlehem, so maybe they are the two
> > feminine ones caused to go forth from Bethlehem in Micah 5:1.
> >
> > This is a wild guess, but I was wondering if it is at least grammatically
> > possible.
> >
> > Kenneth Greifer
> > _
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew