Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

Yes, this is a good list on biblical Hebrew, largely due to (or because of)
its moderators.

In Gn 30:24 we find יסף and יוסף
>From a grammar viewpoint both forms are exactly  the same thing: Hiph'il
imperfect, 3rd person singular masculine.
No change of binyan.

In 2Sa 20:13 we have הגה which is exactly the same thing as הוגה we find in
Lm 3:32. (Look also at Lm 1:5)
No change of binyan.
(Remark: I'm not saying that these two words mean exactly the same; I say
that they are grammatically the same form: Hiph'il Past, 3rd person sing.
masc. with the difference that one lacks waw and one has waw)

Is this, Karl, the answer type you were looking for?

Maybe you ask whether an included waw causes a change of binyan?
If your true question is the latter, let me know: I will try to find the
right answer to it (frankly, I've never thought of it)

Kind regards.

Pere Porta

2011/9/24 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)
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Pere Porta