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) How do you KNOW they are not piel participles?
>
> I don’t begrudge your efforts, but at this point, it sounds like you
> started out with the presupposition that they are not piel participles,
> therefore the conclusion that they are not piel participles. It sounds like
> a circular argument.
>
>>
>> (PP) My statement, Karl, is an empirical one.
>>
>

>   I did'nt presuppose  anything at all. I only made a deep search of the
>> real structures of Hebrew, those that really exist, the existing patterns 
>> of
>> the real Hebrew language...
>>
>
And regarding pattern (M + TWO root consonants)....  none is a Pi'el
Participle. NONE!





>      (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?
>>
>
> (KR) The reason I have not made such a list goes back to the reason I
> learned Biblical Hebrew in the first place, namely to read the text. As a
> Bible believing Christian, it was not to be a scholar, not to be a
> lexicographer, but merely as an act of worship, to learn of God’s message to
> us people. The only English translation I had at that time was the KJV,
> which I understood to about 80%. I hoped that with reading in Hebrew that
> would go to 100%. Instead I found out that our knowledge of Biblical Hebrew
> still has a lot of holes, and we are the more honest to admit to those areas
> of uncertainty.
>
> Some of those uncertainties are caused by poor lexicography, as I could see
> from Gesenius, BDB, Davidson, and so forth, so that is why I started making
> notes in the margins of the dictionaries I had.
>
> Other uncertainties are caused by poor application of grammar.
>
> Rather than a list of words, it seems to me that the more accurate way is
> to list verses where the Masoretic pointing is wrong, and why. Both Isaiah
> 30:14 and Proverbs 1:19 led to discussion threads on this list because I
> brought them up, and Job 39:13 I joined that thread. And I conclude that
> Proverbs 30:19 should read “The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a
> snake on a smooth rock, the way of a ship in heart of the sea and the way of
> a hero into the unknown” where the context indicates that a word that is
> pointed one way all the other times it is used should be pointed differently
> here.
>
>
>>  (PP) 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...
>>
>>
> (KR) Other than a list like this where people can ask sometimes even stupid
> questions (I am not exempt), which publication is willing to publish
> articles questioning the status quo?
>

(PP) At least from a theoretical viewpoint, Karl, science is (or should be)
OVER the miseries and meanness of human beings...

>
>> Hearty,
>>
>> Pere Porta
>>
>

>  Karl W. Randolph.
>
>


-- 
Pere Porta
"Ei nekrói ouk eguéirontai, fágomen kai píomen áurion gar apothnéskomen"
(1Cor 15:32)