Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Pere:

On 10/26/10, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (PP)
> Remark: not 11 different verbs that are conjugated as a mem followed by two
> root letters as participles.
> But they are 11 different "patterns", "structures"
>
>  Here there are 9 of them:
> www.oham.net/out/P-d/P-d189.html
> www.oham.net/out/P-d/P-d191.html
> www.oham.net/out/P-d/P-d192.html
> www.oham.net/out/P-d/P-d193.html
> www.oham.net/out/P-d/P-d194.html
> www.oham.net/out/P-d/P-d196.html
> www.oham.net/out/P-d/P-d197.html
> www.oham.net/out/P-d/P-d198.html
> www.oham.net/out/P-d/P-d199.html
>
> --The 10th one isn't available now on the net. It concerns Hiphil
> participles of verbs ayin-ayin as we find them in Jr 21:4; Is 44:25 and so
> on.
> --The 11th one (also not on the net now) refers to Hiphil Participles of
> verbs that at a time are lamed-heh (or lamed-yod if you prefer) and peh-yod
> -- look at Pr 6:13
>
> Within the 9,000 (nine thousand) patterns I have listed so far, eleven are
> build up with M + TWO root letters. And none of them is a Piel participle.
> This means, from a reasonable viewpoint, that a pattern (M + two root
> consonants) used as a Piel Participle simply DOES NOT exist in the real
> Hebrew language.
>
> (Note: We could add an 12th pattern which is a hophal participle: look at Ml
> 1:11, Jb 11:15 and Is 13:14.)
>
> I hope this helps.

Exactly, this is what I was looking for all along.

All along I wanted to see if your evidence was strong enough that I
could concede my question that you are right. I was willing to concede
that it could be a hiphil if your evidence is strong enough.

However, you have no evidence that a mem followed by two root letters
is never found as a piel or pual. Or more accurately, the only
evidence you have are the Masoretic points, which are an untrustworthy
source.

Some of your examples, such as Ezekiel 33:32, Exodus 21:12 and 1 Kings
6:29, are in piel contexts, making the hiphil unlikely. In fact, I
don’t think I would read a single one of your examples as a hiphil
(though a couple may be questionable).
>
> Pere Porta
>
All along I have said that if your “evidence” are the Masoretic
points, that that is not evidence. Having read Tanakh through more
than 20 times, I have learned not to trust them. Further, there is no
question that they do not reproduce Biblical Hebrew as it was spoken.
(They represent a tradition of accumulated mispronunciations from a
millennium of non-native speakers and the traditions they built up.)

The evidence that I recognize are the words as they are used in their
contexts as they are found in Tanakh, not the patterns found in any
grammar, especially a grammar based on the Masoretic points.

Thank you for your answer.

Yours, Karl W. Randolph.