Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

>
>   (Pere)
>> you raised this question on last October.
>> Our friend Randall Buth wrote this:
>>
>> * Karl's suggestion of a piel from '.y.d. is bogus Hebrew
>> (an impossible suggestion).*
>> *Psalm 31.12 is presenting 'elipsis' in its second clause.*
>>
>> Were the raisons then provided (by me and others) against the possibility
>> of M)D as a Pi'el (*) form not convincing?
>>
>> Maybe you did not read those posts?
>>
>
> (Karl)


>  No, you just reminded me why I forgot his answer. His answer did not take
> into account context nor syntax.
>
> I remember your answer for another part of the question I raised in
> October.
>
>>
>>
> (Pere)

>
>> (*) You write now "puel". Do you mean "pual"?
>>
>
>  (Karl)

>  You’re right, I meant pual. I just recently reread the question and
> realized that a pual would probably fit the form better than a piel.
>
>>  (Pere)

No, a Pual of verbs ayin"yod consisting of M + two root letters, as it is
the case for M)D, is not found in Hebrew, Karl. And it is not found because
it does not exist.

The nearest thing (in the Bible) to your supposition is a Huphal Participle

-either of verbs peh-yod, as MCQ (Jb 11:15) or MWSD (Is 28:16)
-or of verbs ayin-waw, as MWMT (1Sa 19:11, last word in the verse) or MWSR
(Is 17:1)

Remark: a Huphal Participle, not a Pual Participle.

At this point a question arises: so, which is the pattern for the Pual
Participles of verbs ayin-yod?

And the answer is: There are three pattern types for the Pual Participle of
verbs ayin-waw but... as far I found only one pattern for verbs ayin-yod:
M + first root consonant (with qubbuts) + yod (with dagesh and qamats) +
third root consonant.
So, we'd get M)YD, מְאֻיָּד

Kind regards.

>
>> Pere Porta
>> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
>>
>
>
>