Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

>
>
>>>> (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.
>>
>
> (KR) Why? On what basis is this claim made?
>
>>
>>
> (PP) I have worked for many years (since 1990) to build up a list of as
many as possible of Hebrew patterns or structures.
My present list consists of about nine thousand (9,000) patterns with, of
course, the corresponding explanation.

In this sense I have some authority to confirm that the pattern or structure
(M + two root consonants) is NEVER a Piel Participle.



>   /KR)
>> That was one of the threads in my discussion with Randall Buth on the verb
>> NGD. In looking at all the occurrences, some look like hophals, some piels,
>> some puals, while he claimed all were hiphils.
>>
>
>>
> (PP) Unfortunately I did not participate in this discussion.

>    .................
>>
>

>    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.
>>
>
> (KR) How do you know? What data are you using?
>
>>
>>
> (PP) Within the aforementioned list of 9,000 patterns or structures there
are eleven patterns (only eleven, 11) consisting of (M + two root
consonants).
Now, NONE is a Piel Participle.
Accepting that my study has been a deep one (so I hope!), it is quite
logical to think that indeed NO pattern (M + two root consonants) is a Piel
Participle.


>    (PP) By the way, Karl, are you creating a list of these words?).
>>
>
> (KR) No, I’n not making a list. First and foremost, when I sit down to read
> from Tanakh, I read an unpointed text, so usually I don’t know when I read
> it using different points.
>
> There are a few exceptions, one being Isaiah 30:14 where the text reminds
> me of blacksmithing (which I have done) and not of pottery (which I have
> studied). But most of the time I don’t know.
>
>>

>     (PP) I think it would be worthwhile to create this list, Karl. I mean:
>>>> a list of those words in the Bible that could be pointed in a way other 
>>>> than
>>>> the masoretic way. And at a time showing how this different pointing  
>>>> would
>>>> give a meaning or an understanding of the text that is different from 
>>>> that
>>>> which has been currently accepted.
>>>>
>>> I admit that this is a work. yes. But... as you're a lexicographer, why
not to do a little more work or effort to get such a list?
I think this would result in a QUITE interesting work for the whole of the
Bible world (both scholars and -within certain limitations-  also
non-scholars).
Of course it could become an interesting work to publish...


Hearty,



>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Pere Porta
>>>> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Karl W. Randolph.
>
>