Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Pere:

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:

>         (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!
>

Pere, you know that this is not my usual way, I don’t like to keep bugging
people when they don’t answer my questions, but here it is again, how do you
determine that such a pattern does not exist in Biblical Hebrew? What clues
are you using? Please give details, not just blanket statements that don’t
mean anything.

>
>
If you don’t answer my questions this time, I’ll have to conclude that you
don’t have any reasons for your claim other than possibly tradition and/or
the Masoretic points, both of which are bruised reeds.

>
>
>
>>  (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...
>

Yeah, sure! I wish it were so.

But publication editors are very conservative, and people like me who push
the boundaries often rub them the wrong way, usually unintentionally. That
is a problem built into the peer review system, a structural problem, not
the fault of the people themselves.

Someone who comes up within the system proposing a minor modification or
clarification usually has no problems. It’s when people like me who come in
from outside the system that pose the most problems. I just have to live
with that. Grin and bear it.

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

Karl W. Randolph.