ducky wrote:Isaac Fried wrote:Here is Jer. 5:6
עַל כֵּן הִכָּם אַרְיֵה מִיַּעַר זְאֵב עֲרָבוֹת יְשָׁדְדֵם נָמֵר שֹׁקֵד עַל עָרֵיהֶם כָּל הַיּוֹצֵא מֵהֵנָּה יִטָּרֵף
What do I care what "Binyan" is יִטָּרֵף. All I need to know is that
יִטָּרֵף = היא-טרף, with היא referring to the beneficiary of the act טרף, namely, the one having the good fortune of ending as dinner for the tiger.
I gave this example using this root, for a reason.
we were speaking about the grammar of the Masoretic and the Binyanim, and what was used and what was not.
I will wait with the answer.
the יטרף is not really a Niphal but it is a Passive Qal that is pronounced "yutraf" (looks like Huphal).
When one looks at a basic grammar book, he may see in the "conjugation tablet" that the Niphal is marked as the passive for Qal.
But the Niphal is not really linked directly to Qal. It is a conjugation that stands on its own.
The Qal has its own passive
Like Piel has Pual (quttal)
and Hiphil has Huphal
So the Qal (pa'al) has "pual" (qutal)
(the Qal has more passive forms)
Notice the difference between the quttal and the qutal.
This form of qutal as passive Qal is seen in the bible as quttal (exactly like the pual).
But while the double "t" of Pual is part of the conjugation form, the double "t" of the Passive Qal is a Dagesh that comes because of the previous opened short vowel.
So they seem the same, but their essence is different.
When it comes to the imperfect form, the Passive of Qal comes in the form of "yuqtal".
The Niphal original meaning was not passive, but it is reflexive or mutual.
נכנס - reflexive - got in (he let himself inside the room)
נלחם - mutual - fight with someone
When the Passive Qal was stopped to be used (and the reasons are understood according to the forms that it uses), the Niphal took its place and was used as the passive of Qal
When the Masoretic voweled the text, whenever they saw this passive Qal, they changed it to Niphal (only if the spelling of the word allowed it) (like in the "imperfect forms")
(When it comes to the "perfect" form - it was voweled as Passive Qal "quttal")
When the Bible write יטרף, it can be seen as Niphal (yittaref) or as Passive Qal (yutraf)
How should we know if that is Niphal or Qal?
First, we see that the meaning of יטרף is pure passive (eaten by an animal) - there is no doubt about it.
Second, we see the root of טרף comes only in Qal.
There is no נטרף in the Bible which is pure Niphal (not as "perfect" and not as a participle).
Why is that?
By that, the assumption is that the יטרף form is understood as Qal form and should be voweled as "yutraf".
But since this form was lost, the MT voweled it according to the Niphal which "took the place" of the Passive Qal - as "yittaref" (So the passive meaning is kept, the form is different)
when it comes to the "perfect" as טרף טרף יוסף in Gen. 37:33, the second טרף is not a "pual" form, but it is a Passive Qal form.
Because the first טרף as absolute is Qal. as the combination needs to be: Absolute and the next verb from the same conjugation.
And also, there is no "piel" for טרף.
This examination is valid for any "yqtl" in a passive meaning who doesn't have a "perfect" and Participle Niphal.
And also, it is valid for any "pual" (quttal) that for some reason has no "Piel" occurances, and that its active form is always Qal. (that would raise a suspicion that it may be a "perfect" passive Qal).