Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Pere:

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

This one certainly is not a qal, nor a hiphil, so why not a piel? There are
other examples in Tanakh of where a verb appears only once in a binyan while
often in other binyanim, so why should this verb be different?

Anyways, the context indicates a piel meaning, not a hiphil.


> 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
>

Modern Israeli language is irrelevant to a study of Biblical Hebrew. In many
ways including grammar and vocabulary, it is a different language.

>
>
> 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
>

First of all, this is a noun. Though nouns derived from verbs often follow
clear rules for participles, that is not always the case. The translation of
this verse is, “The one who strikes a man that he dies shall surely be put
to death.” The meaning is clearly not hiphil, causative, rather referring to
the status of the actor as having done an action, which is piel.

>
> 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.
>

The Academy of the Hebrew Language is irrelevant to this discussion. They
are a group of people who are prone to mistakes, like any other group.

As for מסב, the context tells us that this is a noun that is plated with
gold, an architectural feature of the temple. What exactly it was, we are
not sure, as most of that terminology has been forgotten.

If you want an example of a participle, a better verse is Jeremiah 21:4
which context is again consistent with a piel, inconsistent with a hiphil.

>
> Kind regards from Barcelona.
>
> Pere Porta
>
> As I said before, the evidence that counts are the words used in their
contexts in Tanakh, unpointed. Speculated reconstructions don’t count. Such
reconstructions are what Randall dismisses as “first year Hebrew” in that
one is looking at patterns from speculation, not actual examples as they are
found in the text.

Karl W. Randolph.