Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

[b-hebrew] Scope of data – infinitive absolute
> [RB]
> >> or if one doesn’t
> >> recognize an infinitive absolute structure being used for a finite verb,
. . .
> Already on this list you were presented with
> Ecc 4:2 shabbeaH ani
>

[Karl]
> In context this is a classic participle. Only the pointing “contaminates” it
> to something else.

[RB]
So apparently Karl reads this as a qal verb. We can test the probability of
this by looking for confirmation. Unfortunately, the MT has too few
occurrences for disambiguation (a participle meshabbeaH would have done so),
so we look for outside points of confirmation. Mishnaic Hebrew distinguishes a
qal “to improve, rise in value (intransitive)’ from a pi``el ‘to praise’. That
qal meaning, of course, conflicts with Ecc 4.2, but it does suggest that a qal
might have existed during BH times, accidently unattested, but with a 
different
meaning than the pi``el ‘praise’. And the MT, of course, sees the
BH verb as a pi``el, which is congruent with the consonantal text and with
mishnaic Hebrew. Finally, one can look at Arabic, a language that
split off from NorthWest Semitic languages and Hebrew before attested,
written BH. Arabic has a “cognate pi``el” verb sabbaHa ‘he praised’.
Another point
of confirmation. The probability is definitely in favor of reading as
a pi``el. A theory
can stand isolated improbabilities, of course, but here it is unnecessary.
A pi``el infinitive makes good sense in BH, it corresponds with
mishanic Hebrew,
it correspends with the MT, and it corresponds with comparative Semitics.
What’s not to like?.

>> and Esth 9:1 nahafox hu (vnhpwk hw’)

> In this context, this is not an infinitive being used as a finite
verb, rather an infinitive indicating results of previous action.

Technically, I could agree that this is an infinitive absolute being used as a
BH infinitive absolute. Actually, this follows three long
prepositional phrases,
leaving the infinitive absolute as the primary candidate for the main
predication, which does describe the unexpected result. And there is nothing
wrong with a main clause describing a result.
Furthermore, the infinitive absolute is in a different syntactic context,
without a preposition like the earlier li-shlot  ‘shem-po`al
(verbal noun, a.k.a. ‘infinitive construct’) . And the pronoun goes with
the infinitive absolute, which ties in with what we see in some of the
infinitive absolute structures where separate, nominative subjects occur.
The ‘w’ of course, is good Hebrew idiom after
introductory phrases (Gn 22:4, 39:18, Is 6:1, etc.).
So here is an ‘infinitive absolute’ structure used as a main clause.

>> and Est 9:5 ve-abbed (+ transitive objects). Plus others.

[Karl]
> If you look at Est 8:6, this is a noun. and here in context it is also a
> noun. It is connected with MKT that precedes it.

This might be a double mistake.
First, Est 8:6 is a different word `bdn,
as is Est 9:5(A)   w-'bdn.
However, I referred to Est 9:5(B), later in the verse,  ve-abbed,
where the infinitive absolute is a separate clause that lists whom they 
killed.
Reading charitably, it appears that you did not refer to the correct clause
in my comment.


>> May I suggest that you read your “friends” Gesenius 113 y-gg, Jouon-Muraoka
. . .
> This e-list does not need to repeat lengthy, published, conclusive > 
> discussions.

> How much are these published discussions based on the Masoretic points,
> which are untrustworthy?

Here, several problems or mistakes. First, there does not appear to be
an answer
or even a willingness to learn.
Secondly, the question would only be relevant if 100% of the information
were based on the MT. But that is not true.
There are cases where the consonantal text is unambiguous, like Est 9:1 above.
Phoenician (a dialect/language so close to BH that we can suppose that
Hirom and
Solomon could have understood each other, speaking in each other’s dialect)
has many examples of qtl ank (qatol anoki), and not based on the MT.
Thirdly, there is only a ‘black and white’ argument, as if something
less than 100%
perfect cannot provide any kind of perspective. To what degree are the MT
vocalizations morphologically untrustworthy?
The MT is a remarkable text that preserves morphological information that was
not understood or appreciated in its time. The morphological shapes of words 
in
the MT vocalization can be studied, compared with earlier spellings in DSS
Hebrew and the variations in consonantal texts, and then these can be compared
to closely related languages, like Arabic, Aramaic, Ugaritic and Akkadian, in
order to judge ‘how genetic’ these structures are. The MT comes through such
study with remarkable results and acclaim. No one claims 100%, but throwing
everything out as ‘untrustworthy’ would be silly. You didn’t do that,
of course,
you only asked a question, that is shown to be irrelevant, and took a jab at
the MT, but your question is not an answer.

[RB]
>> And the references to Western European languages is really an old dodge.

[Karl]
> It’s no dodge, it’s a serious question. Even though the infinitive absolute
> construction is not a Western European phenomenon, how much of the
> understanding thereof is contaminated by Western European thought?

So how much is based on Western European? None, or imperceptibly.
Maybe the reverse question needs to be asked:
How much of your reluctance to admit the structure is contaminated by
Western European thought?
But we don’t need either question. The structure exists in BH, as you will
find out when you take the time to study the question.

[RB]
>> Do you know le-shabbeaH as a qal verb anywhere?

[Karl]
> I checked the consonantal text of Eccl. 4:2 in both WLC and Aleppo, both
have it written as ושׁבח, not לשׁבח as you have in your question above.

You missed my point. le-shabbeaH is an infinitive vocabulary citation in
order to refer to a vocabulary item as a pi``el. It was not a citation of 
text.
Sometimes communication breaks down, but it always helps to ask
‘what might be referred to here that would make sense?’

>>  I cite the above
>> grammarians for you to learn that these are the tip of an iceberg

> It is an appeal to authority when you mention them and not their arguments.
> You don’t need to reproduce their complete arguments, a paragraph should
> suffice to cover their main points.

Actually, it is an appeal to their data. That is what ‘tip of the iceberg’
means in context. And a paragraph summarizing their main points cannot
communicate the weight of accumulative data against your position. You
will need to go through these sources. In fact, if I summarized their
argument, I suspect that you would accuse me of an ‘appeal to authority’.

In addition, since the above won't cover all of the examples in Dead Sea
Hebrew, I will kindly add one of them for you to see, (although it is not
from the Bible, there is nothing that is not understandable from BH):

4Q398 fr 14-17 (4QMMT C 25ff)
זכור [את ]דויד שה[ו]א איש חסדים
[ו]אפ ה[ו]א [נ]צל מצרות רבות
ונסלוח לו
ואף אנחנו כתבנו אליך מקצת מעשי התורה
שחשבנו לטוב לך ולעמך

It's a nice example of their Hebrew including biblical syntax that was
not known in Aramaic. And it doesn't rely on the MT vocalization, either.
Just a main clause infinitive absolute, not Aramaic, good Hebrew.

So you are aware that there is a lot of data, too much for this list and
for discussions that are already too long. If you don't want to look at
it, already collected and published, then I won't be able to go and
rewrite it all for you on list.

The rest of the too-long discussion loses relevancy with the above and
is deleted.
You can certainly cite pieces if needed to respond to the above.

for example:
. . .
[Karl]
>This whole section is based on two fallacies:
>
>1) just because certain sounds, hence phonemes, are found in other, cognate
>languages, therefore they were necessarily found in Hebrew as well.

No Karl, you’ve not digested the argument. Comparative linguistics assumes
the opposite, that the phonologies of related languages are different
and that they have different phonemic inventories. But one studies
and explains the correspondences and divergencies.

etc., etc.,

but not related to the infinitive absolute




-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life