Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

>
>
>> (PP) I think it is very, VERY, difficult to maintain that M'OD is (or can
>> be) a Pi'el Participle of the same root of the noun aleph-yod-daleth
>> (distress).
>>
>
> (KR) Are you basing this response on the Masoretic points? If so, you know
> that the first thing I do with difficult verses is strip off the Masoretic
> points because they are too often wrong in meaning, not counting that they
> don’t reflect Biblical pronunciation.
>
> I think the pointing is wrong, even for Masoretic pronunciation.
>
>>
>> (PP) Patterns consisting of prefix M- and two root letters are always
>>
>> 1. Either Hiph'il Participles as in Ez 33:32; Jr 21:4; Pr 17:4...
>>
>
> (KR) What makes you think they are all hiphils? Tradition? Masoretic
> points?
>
>
(PP)

I say that (disregarding of vowel points), a Hebrew word that consists of [M
+ two root consonants] (as it would be the case for M'D in your viewpoint)
cannot be a Pi'el Participle.

It is quite true that many times an M at the beginning of a word is a sign
of Pi'el Participle. But  this happens *only *when the word consists of M +
three root consonants as we find samples in Gn 27:6 or 43:4; Dt 4:1 and many
others.


(PP)

>   2. Or Hoph'al Participles as in Jb 11:15; Ml 1:11...
>> 3. Or nouns usually coming from bases ayin-ayin as 'magen' (shield) (Gn
>> 15:1); 'ma'oz', fortress, protection (not in the Bible). (Some others 
>> derive
>> from bases pe-nun as 'matan' (gift) (Pr 21:14) or 'makhah' (wound) (Lv
>> 26:21) and a few others come from bases ayin-yod such as 'm'dan', 
>> discussion
>> (cf Gn 25:2, where it is used as a proper name), from '(la)dyn', to
>> judge (Dn 10:1)
>>
>> Nothing of Pi'el Participle here.
>>
>> (How would you justify this possibility of a Pi'el Participle?)
>>
>
> (KR) First, the adjective/adverb “exceeding, very” does not fit this
> context.
>
> If you disagree that this is a piel, according to your description above,
> it could be a hiphil. But I find myself questioning if all those called
> hiphils really are hiphils, not only here, but on other verbs as well.
>
>>

>   (PP)
>>
>
It would be good and interesting, Karl, that you give some (at least one)
examples of what you're saying here.
Maybe it would make the starting point of an interesting and profitable
discussion among us.

It is possible that in certain cases a given word (in the Bible) that has
been currently taken as a hiphil .... is not a hiphil but something else.

 In a more general way: I say that this structure: M + TWO root consonants
is NEVER a Piel Participle in the practice of the Hebrew language.

(I'm not denying that in some cases you may be right in the sense that the
traditional masoretic points are (or can be) wrong.
By the way, Karl, are you creating a list of these words?).

>
>> Kind regards.
>>
>

>
>> Pere Porta
>> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
>>
>>
>>
>
>