Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Petr Tomasek <tomasek AT etf.cuni.cz>]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 03:26:19PM -0700, K Randolph wrote:
> Ken:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Ken Penner <kpenner AT stfx.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Do the following help?
> >
> > Joüon §59g: "In the light of Ugr. tštḥwy “she prostrates herself,” what
> > used to be considered hitpa̧ʿlẹl, represented almost entirely by the
> > frequent הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה to worship, to prostrate oneself, is most likely a
> > Hištafʿel of √ חוי."
> >
> 
> >From where does he get this?
> 
> >
> > Joüon §79t:
> > "Verb חיה: Hištafʿel form הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה to bow down, to prostrate oneself,
> > to worship.
> > The original root is חוי, i.e. ל״י (cf. § a). The conjugation is hištafʿel
> > (§ 59g; not Hitpaʿlel). The form expresses the causative reflexive action
> > to bow down, to prostrate oneself().
> > In the perfect the primitive form is hištaḥway. The future *yištaḥway has
> > become יִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה (3rd pl. יִשְׁתַּחֲווּ). The apocopated form is
> > *yišta'ḥw, in which the consonantal w becomes the vowel u: 
> > וַיִּשְׁתַּ֫חוּ.
> >
> 
> Are there any other verbs in Biblical Hebrew that have this
> conjugation? Can you list a few examples?

No. There are not. But causative stems with š-/s- are usual in many
semitic languages, e.g. Aramaic, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Arabic, Geez.

> If not, Biblical Hebrew does have a few quadriliteral roots, and this
> follows the pattern of being one, namely שחוה $XWH, used only in Hitpael.
> 
> There appear to be a few uses of the root שחה $XH in the Hitpael. Its form
> is very similar to שחוה $XWH.

No, it isn't. Show me another example of a triliteral root in any
semitic language being extended by a consonantal W between the 2nd and
3rd radical...
This is simply nonsense, it doesn't happen in the semitic languages.

> That he uses the word “future” when there is no such conjugation in
> Biblical Hebrew doesn’t speak well of him.
> 
> 
> > Observation. In 2Kg 5.18 הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָתִי the inf. has been vocalised in
> > Biblical Aramaic fashion (wrongly, actually, for with the suffixes the 
> > inf.
> > takes the ending ūt(). After a scribe had wrongly spelled וי, this 
> > sequence
> > was later vocalised mechanically in the Aramaic fashion. One should read
> > (in the 3rd pers.) הִשְׁתַּחֲווֹתוֹ."
> >
> 
> Does he have any documentation to back up this claim?
> 
> This verse reads quite well as written using an unpointed text.

How?

> >
> Karl W. Randolph.


Petr Tomasek