Pere:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:
From the viewpoint of form, there is a verbal form, not a noun.In my list of about 9,000 patterns, I found none that being the sum of prefix TW- + two root consonants is a noun. And I say this of both prefixes TW- and T + qubbuts.This said, this pattern TW + two root consonants can be:1. From verbs p"y, as Karl suggests ------ see Gn 15:15; Am 7:10; Ps 45:15As a verbal form, can be either niphal or hophal.2. From verbs ayin"waw (or ayin"yod), as lexicons say of twraq in Song 1:3 -------- see 2K 11:15As a verb, from hophal.3. From verbs ayin"ayin (doubled), as David Kolinsky suggests -------- I found no sample in the Tanakh.Isaiah 33:1 $DDThen, the context and the sense must decide which is the precise root TWRQ comes from.Song 1:3 seems to be a rare construction: shemen twraq shimkha...But, Karl, this is certainly not a noun. If the pattern [TW + 2 root consonants] exists in Hebrew as a noun pattern... I surely would have found it.Let’s look in TWGH from YGH, TWDH from YDH, TWRH from YRH, TW$B from Y$B found in Genesis 23:4, Exodus 12:45, Leviticus 22:10 and at least nine other verses, so you should have found it.Friendly,Pere Porta(Barcelona, Catalonia, Northeastern Spain)=So my question remains, is this a noun from YRQ?Karl W. Randolph.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.