Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Pere:

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>> 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)
>
> 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.
>

Is it a ayin yod verb, or is it that the noun is derived from a hiphil
rendering of the root? It is not listed as a verb in the concordance.

So what do you think it is, in a way that fits the context and syntax? The
adjective “very” does not fit.

>
>
> Kind regards.
>
>>
>>> Pere Porta
>>> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
>>>
>>
>> In this discussion, I start with context and syntax, then ask “What is
it?” The message I understand from your posting is that you start, and end,
with the form as it appears with its Masoretic points. You look at grammar,
while I look at meaning.

While I try to be careful to avoid the etymological error, at the same time
I recognize that not all verbs had a three letter root: only the majority
had triliteral roots, a few have quadriliteral roots, while there are many
that should have biliteral roots—many but not all of those that are listed
in dictionaries as ayin waw and ayin yod verbs (in my dictionary I still
list them according to the traditional triliteral roots, because of
tradition, but when I read Tanakh I see them acting as biliteral verbs).

So back to this verse, I see a context and syntax indicating that this word
in its form should be a piel or pual participle, and ask “What is it?” What
do you say it is?

Karl W. Randolph.