Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Pere:

On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:

> (KR)
>
>> I don’t consider these nouns to have a M- prefix, other than that brought
>> about by being the piel, pual, hiphil or hophal participles, treated as
>> nouns. The forms follow the grammatical rules for the conjugations of
>> participles.
>>
>> (PP)
>
>
> Karl,
> Yes, a M- prefix is what you say. But I was not asking about M- prefix, but
> about MI- prefix.
>
> (KR)
>
>> As for their meanings, they refer to people, objects, actions or places
>> connected with the actions denoted by the verbs. Hence a M)HB is a lover,
>> MZKYR a recorder, a type of secretary, MBW(H a flowing spring, MB+ an
>> expectation, MB+) a rash utterance, MKTT a smithy for metal work, and so 
>> on.
>>
>> (PP)
>> You bring here six words... but only one matches my question: MB+), a rash
>> utterance. Here M = MI.
>>
>

> I know that you read the unpointed Tanakh as you think that massoretic
> vowels may be wrong and they do not belong, strictly speaking, to the
> biblical text itself but are something added and somewhat artificial.
>

Some of the times there is no question but that the points definitely are
wrong. That is why I stopped using them.


>
> I understand that position of yours.
> But maybe you should reconsider this, Karl.
> Your answer to my post shows quite clearly that you mix M-, MA- and MI- as
> being all of them the same thing or, maybe, variants of the same thing.
>

Until shown otherwise by context or meaning, I see no reason to consider
them other than as variants of the same thing.

>From my answer, you see that I made a distinction between this use and the
M- prefix from MN, so that’s not the question.


> Now, while M- and MA- are the prefixes of, respectively, the Pi'el and the
> Hiph'il Participles, this is not the case of MI-
> MI- (I mean mem with hiriq), indeed, is never used for participles of any
> type. It is true that in some instances (Lv 14:4; Nm 7:89 and maybe in a few
> others) MI- is found for Hithpa'el Participle ---> but the reason is that it
> comes with verbs having dalet, tet or tav for their first root consonant and
> here the usual Hithpa'el prefix MIT- changes to MI- for ear reasons.
>

There is no reason to accept that those are hithpael participles, neither
from the context nor meaning.

>
> In other words, we have to distinguish CAREFULLY between prefixes MA-, MF-,
> M"-, ME-, MI-, MO- and MU-
>

Seeing as how Tanakh was written only with consonants, we don’t know if
these various prefixes existed in Biblical Hebrew, and if they did, whether
or not they made a difference in meaning. Nor do we know if the Masoretes
accurately transcribed the sounds.

>
> The inner structure of MGLH, discoverer (Jb 12:22) is quite different from
> that of MQNH, cattle (Gn 46:32), even both having a base lamed-he (or
> lamed-yod, if one prefers)
>

The section in Job 12 starts in verse 12, where the subject is given. You
need to read in context. MGLH in verse 22 is a participle, referring to the
action taken by the subject of the section, named in verse 12.


> Now, words with prefix MI- are ONLY nouns -and no more Participles used as
> nouns-  and that is why I put my initial question on the meaning of this
> MI-.
>
> Hearty
>
> Pere Porta
> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
>
>
>
Well, you have my answer that I think you are making a mountain out of a
molehill. Beyond my answer, someone else may have a different answer. Let’s
see.

Karl W. Randolph.