Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

Karl,
concerning your doubts:

1. Ez 33:32 -------- Compare with the long form found in Psa 119:68. The
Tanakh never uses this verb yatav (or tuv) in piel. Only in qal and in
hifil.
In today Hebrew the piel of this verb is used. But it is used following ptr
www.oham.net/out/P-t/P-t306.html


2. Ex 21:12 ------- The usual piel form would be m'nakeh, would it not?

Look at
www.oham.net/out/P-t/P-t308.html

3. 1K 6:29 -------- Remark that the right piel participle form of verb savav
matches ptr
www.oham.net/out/PI-t1/PI-t1-117.html
as the Academy of the Hebrew Language confirmed some years ago.

Kind regards from Barcelona.

Pere Porta

2010/10/28 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.
>



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