Skip to Content.

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "A. Philip Brown II" <pbrown AT GBS.EDU>
  • To: "BHebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Qal Passives vs. Pual suffix & Hophal prefix forms
  • Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:54:20 -0400

Shalom,

Waltke-O'Conner argue that Pual suffix forms where the Piel and Hithpael of
the root are either unattested or attested only in a different sense and
that Hophal prefix forms where the Hiphil of the root is unattested or
attested only in a different sense are actually Qal passives (W-O, 22.6a).
They also note "various resulting asymmetries (e.g., Pual suffix forms and
Hophal prefix forms from the same root in the same sense) suggest the
existence of a Qal passive stem, as do the semantics of the forms."

Are there other more objective grounds for rejecting the Massoretic pointing
of such Pual suffix / Hophal prefix forms?

Does the lack of attestation in extant Biblical Hebrew actually warrant
their conclusions?

Thanks for your input.

Philip Brown
Cincinnati, OH




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.