Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

Karl,

in the last part of your post you write:

"Do you know of any other examples of a verb listed in dictionaries with a
consonant, waw, tau, which conjugate in qatal hiphil without the medial yod
and without a second tau where normal conjugation calls for one? Absent
being able to show a pattern from ......"

Please what does "qatal hiphil" mean?
Maybe by "qatal" you mean what I call "past"?

Regards from

Pere Porta

2011/4/20 K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>

> Pere:
>
>  On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Good spanner, Karl.
>>
>> I think the likelihood is 100 %.
>>
>
> 100% what?
>
>
>> You will ask why, of course.
>>
>> Remark:
>>
>> 1. In 1S 17:51 we deal with the so called "polel". This is called "polel"
>> because of the doubling of the L, namely the third (or last) root consonant
>> of every stem.
>>
>
> This is also a yiqtol, so this doesn’t answer your question, yes or no.
>
>
>>  Polels -and also Hithpolels-  double every last consonant, be it T or
>> not.
>> There are plenty of examples: in Jb 30:20 we have "wa-titbonen", and you
>> will understand (doubling of N), from "byn" (Dn 10:1); "sorer", he turned
>> aside (Lm 3:11), from "swr", to turn aside (Is 7:17) ; "uml'lw",  they were
>> feeble (Jr 14:2), from "amal", be feeble...
>>
>
> )ML is never found in Tanakh, it is always found as )MLL which has led me
> to question, is this one of the few verbs that is a quadriliteral verb?
>
>>
>> 2. In 2Ch 22:11 we haven't a "doubled tau". Yes, from a material point of
>> view there are two taus, yes. But the second tau is but the heh suffix of
>> the feminine 3rd person singular, which heh becomes tau in the "construct".
>> The same, for instance, as in birkaty, my blessing (Is 44:3), from b'rakah,
>> blessing (Js 15:19).
>>
>
> Exactly, which is why when I look at Numbers 17:6, I expect to see HMTTM
> for MWT with a second person plural suffix.
>
> I realize now that I misstated what I meant, and what I meant was that in 2
> Chronicles 22:11, there is the classic, normal conjugation expected for the
> context, with a second tau, not the defective one proposed for Numbers 17:6.
>
> Again, in 2 Samuel 1:9, 16, while these are not hiphils, they are
> conjugated from MWT where the second tau is the normal conjugation suffix
> for the use and context.
>
>>
>> 3. Now, you're right that HMM has HMTM for the Qal Past, 2nd person plural
>> masculine: look at Js 6:3 (1st word in the verse): it is from "sabab" (Ez
>> 42:19)
>>
>
> HWM also has HMTM for the qatal qal 2nd pers plural.
>
>>
>> With all this, maybe you should review again the stuff.
>>
>>
>> Pere Porta
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you should update your terminology, as Biblical Hebrew did not have
> tense, i.e. past, present, future. Modern Israeli Hebrew does, but that’s a
> language that I don’t know. Because the qatal and yiqtol did not act the
> same way as tenses do in Indo-European languages, I call them “qatal” and
> “yiqtol” so as not to confuse the ideas.
>
> Do you know of any other examples of a verb listed in dictionaries with a
> consonant, waw, tau, which conjugate in qatal hiphil without the medial yod
> and without a second tau where normal conjugation calls for one? Absent
> being able to show a pattern from other verbs that act the same way, why
> should I not read it according to normal Biblical Hebrew patterns and assign
> different roots to these two examples than MWT? Especially when these
> different roots have meanings consistent with their contexts?
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>



-- 
Pere Porta