Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

Karl,

please do us the service of trying to make sense and following an argument.

>> [Pere]
>> >> I sincerely think that you're completely mistaken at claiming that DKYT
>> >> in
>> >> Ps 51:10 is an adjective.
>>
>> Agreed.
>> DKYT is not marked as a fem. plural according to the spelling
>> conventions of Ps 51.
>
> The spelling convention of Psalm 51 is conventional for pre-Exile Biblical
> Hebrew.
> As for the feminine plural, the -YT suffix is used with this spelling e.g.
> Exodus 1:19 or interchangeably with -YWT spelling, e.g. 1 Kings 11:1.
> The -YT suffix is also used for masculine, e.g. Leviticus 13.

Exodus is not a part of Psalm 51, nor 1 Kings. Why didn't you bother
to discuss the vowel letters of Psalm 51 ???????????????????


>> Also, DKY is not attested as an adjective elsewhere.
>
> We are talking about DKYT, not DKY. DKY is a noun found in Psalm 93:3.

Please try to understand when in a conversation.
'bones' has an -wt plural suffix. If DKYT is an adjective, then its -T
is marking the feminine plural too. When the -T is removed, one is
left with DKY as the masc. sing. form. That's pretty basic and not
needing this discussion.


>> Verbs behind DKYT are attested, which would fit dikkita 'you crushed +O'.
>> I did generate an adjective form, otherwise unattested in BH
>> dekuyyot 'crushed, f.pl.' But the spelling of that must be justified.
>
> Conjecture.

BH.
You have produced nothing and have not explained what kind of form your
'fem. pl.' adjective would take, nor how it could be spelled DKYT. So
you have less than a conjecture--simply nothing.

>>
>> >>
>> [KR]
>> > Then how do you explain the missing )$R that should be there if DKYT is
>> > a
>> > verb? But if it is an adjective, then )$R should not be there and it
>> > isn’t.
>>
>> Who imposed the rule that an asher MUST be there?
>> That is silly.
>> BH does not operate that way.

WHere is your answer here? Without your "rule" your whole case
crumbles to nothing.

>>
>> Is 51.2 "Look to Avraham your father and
>> to Sarah [who] gives you birth.
>> אל שרה תחוללכם
>> there is no asher!
>
> הביטו אל אברהם אביכם ואל שרה תחוללכם has one verb, הביטו followed by
> nouns אביכם and תחוללכם.

So תחולל is a noun! You just rewrite the language as you desire?
In your dialect of "Karlit" could you add 'the' and say "the+תחולל"?
Would you be surprised to hear that such a 'noun' was never
seen again in the history of the language, but that a medieval
poet did create a noun out of that verb, תחוללת teHolelet
"approx: generatrice"?

Translated, “Look closely to Abraham your father
> and to Sarah the one who produced you”. This is a different sentence
> structure than what we are discussing in Psalm 51:10.

It is only different after you change all the rules and all the words.
Look at your translation "the one who produced". "The one who"
is translating NOTHING, like the missing 'asher' that you allege MUST
be in Psalm 51.10 if DKYT is a verb. Here in Is 51 you have
THWLL, something that everyone else calls a verb, even the medieval
poet, and following without an asher, just like in Psalm 51.

>>
>>  For lots of examples,
>> see Jouon-Muraoka 158.a,b,c,d.
>> like Jer 13.20 where is the herd that was given you?
>> איה העדר נתן לך
>
> This is a passive, niphal, and passives in both Biblical Hebrew and English,
> the “which” is optional.

BINGO ! the 'which' is optional. Exactly correct. The asher could have
been added to Jer 13.20, BUT it wasn't.  Just like the asher was not
added to the poem in Ps 51.10 before a verb.

>>
>> Dt 32.17 'gods that you have not known'
>> אלהים לא ידעום
>
> Read the context, starting in verse 15. This is a third person plural verb
> with a third person plural suffix.

Exactly. 'Gods that they have not known'. Note the "that". The phrase
'that they have not known' is a verbal clause describing the noun
elohim, exactly like Ps 51.10 and WITHOUT asher.
You apparently do not disagree.

So stop already with the
'it must have 'asher' or it can't be a verb' argument.
That is not a justifiable argument.

>> So I can only side with Pere's "strongly disagree with adjective"
>> position. This is not a close call.  It's BH.

'bones [that] you crushed' is good Biblical Hebrew.
The 'asher' is "optional", and as many have pointed out,
asher is often "omitted" in poetry,
just like Psalm 51.10.

Case closed. layla tov.
Randall



-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life