Please could someone clear up a minor confusion for me, OR a mistake on my
part!
Weingreen (Oxford Hebrew Grammar) writes: "It will be understood that ONLY
the active verbs can take suffixes, niphal, pual, hophal and hitpael are
passives/reflexives and cannot govern an object..." he then proceeds to make
ONLY ONE exception (an infinitive construct, 'his being burned).
I read then prov 2:22 and discover a NIPHAL with a suffix. i then proceed
to check in Shoshan's concordance and lo and behold -- loads more niphals
with suffixes. gesenius also mentions prov 2:22 as being a passive
consttuction sentence.
What have I missed????
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.