Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> wayyiktob Karl
> > Let’s go back to the beginning.
> > I asked if this [מאד m'd--RB] were an example of a
> > piel participle [root alef.yod.dalet. --RB].
>
> This is easiest to resolve by asking what form such a pi``el would
> take and how it might be written?


This is backwards.

Here we start with a “what is that?” then work from there. Start with the
specific example, the word as it is found in its context, then analyze what
it could mean?


> Since you proposed this to Pere
> it would only be curtious to provide him with your proposed form.
>

The “proposed form” is the word as written. Without the Masoretic points.


> …
> I've expressed my doubts, too, commenting that the proposal
> looks like an application of 'first year grammar' concepts without
> regard to BH itself.


So is everything we learn in first year Hebrew class wrong?

For example, when talking about God is usually written as plural אלהים even
though it refers to a single God, but because that is first year Hebrew it
is wrong?

We learn that there are conjugations of Hebrew verbs into qatal and yiqtol,
but because that is first year Hebrew it is wrong?

We should disregard the suffixes that indicate person and number of the
subject of qatal verbs because we learned them in first year Hebrew class?

Don’t YOU still follow most of what you learned in first year Hebrew?

When we come across a word in its context that indicates that what we
learned in first year Hebrew is questionable at best, could likely wrong,
are we to follow the first year Hebrew? I analyze then sometimes do,
sometimes don’t. But it sounds like you do, in that you look for the
grammatical pattern first, the specific example second.



> So without a proposed and supported form
> there is nothing to discuss. Just how do you propose to take a
> root alef.yod.dalet and produce a pi``el participle spelled
> mem.alef.dalet?
>

Was that a tri-literal or a bi-literal root? The concept that all Biblical
Hebrew verbs have tri-literal roots is “first year Hebrew” which I question,
and for good reason. If bi-literal root, just as written.

>
> brakot
> Randall BUth
>
>
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>

Pere wrote that he had specific examples of participles conjugated with a
mem followed by two root letters, and it is from that list of verbs that he
claims that it cannot be piel. I have asked him for the whole list so I can
analyze it. Let’s see what he comes up with.

Karl W. Randolph.