Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Pere:

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Karl,
>
> 1. Concerning the last question in your message, yes, it looks like a
> Hiphil in a quite similar way of "l'hapyl" (1Sa 18:25), which is from
> 'nafal'.
> But.... it seems that verb 'natam' is not found in Hebrew.
> Then... the hypothesis does not work.
>

If this is from N+M, then it would be a happax legomenon. If we used the
above argument for every happax legomenon, would we have any?

>
> 2. No relation with the last verb in Lv 11:43 (which comes from tame', to
> be unclean)
>

Context leads to questioning this conclusion. Not a denial, just
questioning, putting it in the uncertain column.

>
> 3. Why are you not fully accepting the usual or traditional parsing and
> understanding of this word as a Qal Participle, plural masculine, of verb
> להט (lahat)?
>

Context.

The context indicates that we should expect to find in this place an
infinitive with a prefixed lamed. The form we find has the lamed for the
infinitive, and the infixed yod of a hiphil as of a pe nun verb. Hence my
question.

To be honest, I didn’t even consider להט as a possibility, as it fits the
context neither in form nor meaning.

>
>
> Pere Porta
> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
>
> Since I don’t know any cognate languages, I raise the question to others,
is there is a word N+M in a cognate language, and does it has a meaning that
might fit this context?

The other option, are there any alternate readings that indicate a copyist
error?

Karl W. Randolph.