Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

>
>   (PP)
>> 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.
>>
>
> (KR)
>


>  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.
>
>
>>  (PP) Are you saying, Karl, that the form/meaning of '(u)metiv' in Ps
119:68 is a piel one? (Remark: it would be the same in 1Sa 16:17, 4th word
from the end)


>   (PP)
>>
>

>   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
>>
>
> (KR)
>


>  Modern Israeli language is irrelevant to a study of Biblical Hebrew. In
> many ways including grammar and vocabulary, it is a different language.
>
>>
>> (PP) What would you think if I'd say: "Cognate languages are irrelevant to
>> a study of Biblical Hebrew"?
>>
>

>   (PP)
>> 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
>>
>
> (KR) 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.
>
>>
>>
> (PP) If I understand you correctly, do you say that -at least for this
verse in Ex 21:12-  what is essential to the piel is "having done an
action"?

(PP)

>   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.
>>
>
> (KR)
>


>  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.
>
> (PP) If you mean that human beings  -me and you included, the members of
the Academy included-  can sometimes be wrong, then I agree. But I feel you
and everyone -also me, of course- should be more respectful towards the
Academy. Or, in other words, one should have the Academy in a greater
consideration...

I disliked a lot  -some days ago- a statement by Isaac Fried concerning the
Academy of the Hebrew Language.


>  (KR)
> 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.
>
> (PP)
>
Sincerely, Karl, I'm afraid you're somewhat "piel-obsessed"
It seems you're seeing piels everywhere...

-- 
Pere Porta