Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jason Hare <jaihare AT gmail.com>]

To add to this, I'd like to point out Davidson's remarks in /The
Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon/ (pg. 18, §8 rem. 10):

----- BEGIN QUOTE -----
10. The various infinitive forms, which occur as /verbal nouns/, will
be enumerated farther on (§26). Here belong only such as are really
construed as infinitives. The are: –

(a) קָטְלָה [kotlah], קֻטְלָה [kutlah] and קִטְלָה [kitlah], as
feminine forms from קְטֹל [ktol], קְטַל [ktal]; e.g. לְנָבְהָה
[L:NFBHFH] /to become unclean/, Le. 15:32; לְחֻמְלָה [L:CUMLFH] /to
have compassion/, Exe. 16:5; לְמָשְׁחָה [L:MF$XFH] /to anoint/, Ex.
29:29; לְרָחְצָה [L:RFXCFH] /to wash/, Ex. 30:18; לְקָרְבָה [L:QFRBFH]
/to draw near/, Ex. 36:2; לְקִרְאַת [L:QIR)AT], instead of which by
/Syriasm/, לִקְרַאת [LIQRA)T] /to meet/ (i.e. /against/). Moreover,
יִרְאָה [YIR)FH] /to fear/, De. 4:10, and שִׂנְאָה [&IN)FH] /to hate/,
De. 1:27, occur constructed as infinitives, but are besides, more
usually /verbal/ nouns. Forms like אַשְׁמָה [)A$MFH], חֶזְקָה
[XEZQFH], are produced by the effect of the gutturals.
----- END QUOTE -----

The word in question, XUMCFH, is of the same pattern as the above
XUMLFH. As I said, it is an uncommon (yet not irregular) form.

Jason Hare

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Jason Hare <jaihare AT gmail.com> wrote:
> Isaac,
>
> What about חֻצְפָּה XUCPFH (no dagesh in the tsadi) and קֻשְׁיָה
> QU$YFH (no dagesh in the shin)? The mishkal may be uncommon, but it is
> not at all unusual, and the pointing is completely understandable. I
> cannot imagine that anyone who has invested much time in the study of
> the grammar and specifics of the Biblical language would at all
> consider these things odd.
>
> Jason Hare