Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> > As a result I skipped a lot. If
> > you think I skipped something important, then bring it up again.
>
> how about
>
> "ONE example. Please. Please. Please.
>

I gave you seven, but you brushed them off because of your à priori belief
that they all are hiphils. One in particular, I listed as a hophal where the
object of the verb was the person himself, not a message.


> Why do I insist on EXPLICIT? Because anybody, even Karl, can
> propose an implicit object or implicit subject into whatever they
> want and then rewrite and claim a different meaning for the verb.
>

The large percentage of yiqtols in narration that lack the medial yod should
cause you to question. Not just you, but anyone on this list can pick up a
concordance and go down the list of all examples of this verb and their
contexts, and see that even in the first about 120 examples of this verb, I
did not list all the examples where the meaning of “communication” can be
questioned.

Further, it is illegitimate to lock into one definition for a word in a
language where we have no native speakers living to interview, and one
inflection, especially when, as in this case, so many of the examples
violate the spelling rules known to make up this inflection. Or do you claim
that this verb has different rules of inflection than do other peh-nun
Hebrew verbs?


>
> It would be nice to hear the integrity of a statement like,
> "I admit that I do not have one explicit example to show that
> le-haggid can have a non-communication object. But I
> want to believe that it can anyway."
>

No, I cannot make that statement because that would be dishonest.


> That would be playing the game fairly. Scholarship has room
> for that.
>

Scholarship does not have room for dishonesty.

> "
>
> 1. your confusing of the meaning of a root with the meaning of a hif`il.
>

Oh? Where? The only examples I know of are where you misstated my position
(was that deliberate?).

>
> 2. your mistake about the hif`il imperative not wanting yod in 3ms
> without suffix
> and your follow up mistake not recognizing that a WAYYIQTOL "sequential
> prefix
> verb" not wanting yod in the 3ms without suffix
>
.

Daniel 12:12, Proverbs 14:5 among verbs that are peh-nun. What about other
verbs?

>
> Your answer apparently meant that you don't believe in
> a wayyiqtol category, because you mixed yiqtol in with it.
> you are mixing apples with oranges. At least limit your search to wayyaqtel
> examples and describe the statistics.
>

I don’t recognize it having different spelling rules than yiqtol.

>
> 3. the morphology of le-haggid in the Bible.
> >> When a word is
> >> used 369 times one can check ALL of the qatal and imperative and
> >> infinitive examples. Do they ALL have a 'he'? Yes, 247 times out of
> >> 247 examples.
>

> Please try your answer again.
> You didn't get the point that   ALL   UN-AMBIGUOUS
> examples are hif`il/hof`al, 100%. You may of course, argue that something
> other
> than hif`il/hof`al exists. Then, it would have been nice to see ONE
> qal or pi``el that
> was not already readable as a hif`il and that did not already make
> sense as le-haggid.
>

The unambiguous examples are not the question, it is the ambiguous examples.
And many of the ambiguous examples do not follow the hiphil spelling, which
argues against them being hiphils.

>
> huggad leka  הגד לך
> ha`od lo habinota העוד לא הבינת
>
> Randall Buth
>
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>

Karl W. Randolph.