Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

>> >> >>>> Ecc 4.12
>> >> >>>>: אם־יתקפו האחד השנים יעמדו נגדו
>> >> >>>> if someone overpower/attack him, the one,
>> >> >>>> the two will stand against/resist him.
>> >> 3. Most importantly, the morphology cannot support the proposal. A
>> >> hitpa``el would have been spelled y.t.n.q.p.w. יתנקפו. the nun does
>> >> not drop or get absorbed in the pi``el and hitpa``el forms. Without
>> >> a nun in the consonantal text you would be required to amend the
>> >> text and would be doing so arbitrarily, and after already showing a
>> >> lack of control of the language.
>> >
>> > This is a more substantive argument.
>>
>> Actually, decisive.
>>
>> At this point it would have been proper to admit a basic mistake.
>
> I went on to the next step. You had claimed that this verse shows a certain
> use of NGD נגד whereas my response that even using the verb TQP תקף does not
> show what you claim, as you had misused that verb.

I suppose that that is as close as we get to an admission from Karl:
"the other guy is wrong. [=too.]" So we interpret this last sentence,
"I went on to the next step." as equivalent to "Yes, my proposal was
wrong. It was impossible Hebrew." And the readers can draw
their conclusions.

However, when you 'went on', you immediately returned to the same
mistakes. You judged that someone else was 'wrong' on the basis of
an etymological fallacy, that is, because a noun "toqef" can mean
'validity, authority, strength' then the verb taqaf cannot mean attack or
to be stronger than someone else. Also please remember, that just
because you claim
that someone 'misused that verb', your judgement itself is liable to
error. This, too has happened in the past when you cite your own
judgements as if they were settled facts.
Now with taqaf, you need to consider Job 14.20 and 15.24. In both
cases they are 'transitives', they take an object where the subject is
stronger and overpowering the object, which supports the reading
of Ecc 4.12. Even the noun use in Daniel 11.17 toqef kol-malxuto
'strength of all his kingdom' is used in the context of military power
struggles that take place between the kingdom of the south and
kingdom of the north.
So my reading of Ecc 4.12 stands as reasonable and supported.
That is about as good as it gets when there are just a handful of
occurrences. It is comforting and confirming, of course, to know that
that meaning is found in other closely related languages and that
it continued in use in later Hebrew.
And 'la-`amod neged' means 'resist, stand against' just like you
had pointed out for 'la-amod le-neged' in Dan 10.
So it was another mistake to call the proposal 'a misused verb'.
You want to disagree, fine.
And to quote a famous poet,
'and your gravity fails, and negativity don't pull you through'.

b(e)rakot [not ever berakawote !]
Randall