________________It is not me, Karl, who rules out the Niphal use of RWC. Dictionaries or
lexicons I have at hand --of biblical Hebrew as well as of modern Hebrew-
are ruling it out.
Is it possible that, as regards this issue, these dictionaries are
mistaken?
Pere
The short answer, "Yes."
The long answer, as I indicated in my last message, is that if RWC can be
used in a transitive manner, then the niphal is possible.
To give another example:
"He rolls on the floor" intransitive use, equivalent to qal.
"He rolls the ball" transitive use, equivalent to qal.
"The ball is rolled" transitive use, actor not mentioned, equivalent to___________
niphal.
Because "roll" can be used in a transitive manner, the passive (niphal) is
possible. If RWC can be used in a transitive manner, i.e. with an object,
then the passive (niphal) is possible.
As for the possibility that dictionaries are mistaken, the reason I got into
lexicography was because as I was reading Tanakh, I came across examples
where the definitions given in the dictionaries I had at the time (Gesenius,
BDB) did not match the context of the text that I was reading. Some of the
times I came to the realization that the dots indicating vocalizations are
wrong, some of the times the only conclusion was that the definitions in the
dictionaries are wrong. But because I was reading only for personal reasons
and not part of scholarly polemic, I did not keep detailed records of those
disagreements.
So the long answer is, "Yes, it is possible that the dictionaries that you
reference are mistaken."
Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.