Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> 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.
>

Take the English sentence, “Because he is intimately connected with one of
the parties in the law suit, the result is that he be absent from the jury
when it comes to trial.” In this sentence, “be” is an infinitive because it
is subordinate to the verb “is” in the same clause of the sentence.

>From the examples that you gave, where they include an infinitive, it
appears that there is a similar construct to the English example above: that
the infinitive shows the results of antecedent actions, in fact that it is
the marker indicating such. This is not just a series of actions, rather the
purpose of actions and the results.

To give the above English sentence in a form closer to the Hebrew examples
(and not as good English), it would be rewritten as follows, “Because he is
intimately connected with one of the parties in the law suit, that he be
absent from the jury when it comes to trial.“ where “that he be” with the
infinitive is secondary to the verbal phrase “is intimately connected
with”'.

To give the example of Genesis 41:42–43, pharaoh took a series of actions to
establish the authority of the new office of grand vizier and the identity
of the first holder of that office; the final clause of verse 43 uses an
infinitive to show that that was the purpose of those preceding actions.

So it is with every example that you listed where it could be established
that the sentence in fact had an infinitive, that the context indicated
antecedent action(s) where the following action was not just part of a
series of actions, rather the result of that antecedent action(s). You need
to look at contexts.

When looking at your list, as far as I got, I looked at the contexts of all
those examples where it could be established that the verse in fact had an
infinitive, and found a pattern of antecedent—results with infinitives
indicating results, and not a single case of an infinitive standing alone in
the place of a finite verb. In short, I found no evidence for your theory.


> (You still haven’t cleaned up your mess with the Qumran text wnslwH.)
>

I already answered more than once that my initial reaction was because I
thought you referenced a different verb in that quote.

As for the verb you reference, it is nowhere found in Tanakh in that precise
morphology and context. Further, it was written in a dialect that I think
others will agree was early Mishnaic Hebrew. Therefore it is irrelevant to
whether or not that structure is found in Biblical Hebrew.

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