Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Pere:

Thank you.

After asking the question, and receiving your quick answer, I have come
across other examples where it is no question that “save” is meant, but the
waw demanded by the verbal paradigm lists is missing. More “First year
lies”?   ;-)

I see a change in the way I am reading the text, thanks largely to the
influence of this group: I am paying more attention to the exact form being
used and less sliding over just because of the context. Hence some of my
questions.

Or in these forms, do they signal a different binyan than those including
the waw?

Thanks again.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Karl,
> neither different roots nor copyst errors.
>
> (By the way, are you sure of the use of "haburim"?.Maybe you meant
> "habErim"? (See in Jdg 20:11)
>
> The problem you raise is that of the well known "short - long" or "haser -
> male'" (or whatever you may call it) in the biblical text.
>
> (Remark: Jr 46:27 does not exist, Karl. Jr 46 consists of 18 verses)
>
> Now,
> --why M and not MW in the Hiph'il Participle?
> --why T and not TW in the Hiph'il imperfect?
>
>
> Remark that in the Tanakh both forms are used for this binyan.
> And so,
>
> -M ----------------- משיע in 2Sa 22:42
> -MW -------------- מושיע in Is 43:11
>
> -T ----------------  תסף in Ex 11:6
> -TW -------------  תוסיף in Jb 20:9
>
> This is a widely known behaviour or feature of the biblical script, Karl.
>
> Do you agree?
>
> Regards from
>
> Pere Porta
> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Northeastern Spain)
>
>
>