Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Randall Buth wrote:
>>> The qatol in past context, main clauses from Jouon-Muraoka,
>>> (not imperatival qatol, nor, in future contexts, nor aligned with
>>> participle, nor jussive)
>>>
>>> Gn 41.43  ונתון
>
> [Karl]
>> Context! A context that requires an infinitive because it is a secondary
>> use, the result of the actions listed in 42 and 43a.
> . . .
>
> This is the first example in the list, according to canonical order.
> Please clarify your terms and claims.
> (You still haven’t cleaned up your mess with the Qumran text wnslwH.)
>
> How or why does the context “require” an “infinitive”?
> (PS: I hope that you distinguish “infinitive absolutes” from
> “infinitive constructs”. They are separate structures, despite the
> partially overlapping names that are given them in some grammars. In
> this case the ‘absolute’ is naton נתֹן [w-ntwn, with ‘and’, not with a
> preposition], while the ‘construct’ is tet תת, as in la-tet, or
> be-tit-i.)

Karl objects on the basis that context and secondary use require an
infinitive.  Karl objects to another example from Is 37:19 because the
verse citation was wrong (37:39 instead).  In another case, Hag 1:9
Karl objects because he reads an imperative.

I'd like to bring additional evidence into the discussion.  First it should
be clear that the infinitive of ntn is sometimes spelled ntn and
sometimes ntwn as in Nu 21:2 and Deut 15:10, respectively.

In an unvocalized text, the imperative and infinitive can sometimes be
hard to tell apart.  That is, zkwr )t ywm h$bt lqd$w - "Remember the
Sabbath day to keep it holy" - zkwr can be either the infinitive or the
imperative.  However, the imperative of ntn is "tn", making it easy to
tell apart, even in the ostraca from Arad which are referenced below.

In Arad 5, 6 we have $lx m)tk - in this case, $lx could be read as either
imperative or infinitive.
In Arad 3 we have tn mn hyyn - in this case, tn is unambiguously
imperative.
Similarly, in Arad 4 we have tn lktyym - in this case tn is unambiguously
imperative.
However, in Arad 1, 2, 7 we have ntn lktyym - in this case ntn is
unambiguously infinitive.

Since Karl has complained in the past that he does not have clear high
resolution pictures of inscriptions so that he can form his own reading,
here is a photo of Arad 1 -
http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/civil/israel/images/dss361a.jpg
And here is Christopher Rollston's drawing of it:
http://www.maarav.com/fig7w.jpg

For comparison, here is Arad 18, which uses tn instead:
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/images/7/75/Arad_ostracon.jpg

Yitzhak Sapir