Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Pere:

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:13 AM, <pporta AT oham.net> wrote:

> Dear Karl,
> our friend Kenneth was not quite mistaken at saying that the word in Mic
> 5:1is a Hoph'al Participle, singular feminine.
>
While it is possible that this is a hophal, because of the way the waw and
yod interchange with most peh yod verbs, it could also be a piel, a pual or
even a defectively written hiphil. From the context and from the suffix, the
indications are that it is a piel.

>
> 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).


Even there, look carefully at the context. The actor is male, from the
context Judah.  As he is in the process of leaving, Tamar sends to him
indications that causes him to change his mind. Sounds like a piel to me.

That particular participle is used three times, the third time in Song of
Songs 8:10. Each time it has a tau for an ending.

>
> 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)
>
> The use of the participle as an indicator of the present tense is a modern
construct, not Biblical Hebrew. In Biblical Hebrew the use of the participle
is more complex, and does not match the English use. Sometimes in
translation we can use the present tense in English, because translating the
full meaning is both stilted and quite wordy, but that does not fully
indicate the Hebrew meaning.


> 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.
>
> We are all still students of the language, one that is imperfectly
preserved (some terms have lost their meanings (they were forgotten) and
traditions have grown up around others that are not necessarily correct), so
that none of us can read the text without making mistakes. I am one who goes
so far as to say that the Masoretic points are not Biblical Hebrew, even
though they were invented to preserve a pronunciation tradition of Tanakh
that existed at that time.

But when a person indicates the use of a participle in Biblical Hebrew as
"present tense", does that not already indicate confusion that should be
clarified?


> Quite heartly,
>
> Pere Porta
> Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain)
>

Yours,
Karl W. Randolph.