B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

kwrandolph wrote:

Kenneth Greifer wrote:Karl,

The quotes I gave you were all kal, right?

Not necessarily.

Jeremiah 14:4 appears to be a noun.

Isaiah 30:31 is Niphal.

Jeremiah 48:1 and 50:2 appear that they could be from a different root.

You mention Biblehub. I’ve never used it. Not having seen it, I wouldn’t be surprised but that the parsing that they list is according to the Masoretic points which are sometimes wrong.

Kenneth Greifer wrote:But they were also passive, so are you saying the kal form can be active and passive? Or are you saying the ones I gave you were not kal passive?

Kenneth Greifer

Is there such a thing as Qal passive? Even when looking at lists of paradigms, it doesn’t exist except as a participle. As such, it can be an adjective rather than a verb.

This is interesting—what exactly is going on?

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl and Ken,

Here's what Ross says in his introductory Grammar,

Qal Passive: grammarians have observed that some biblical verbs vocalized by the Masoretes as Pual or Hophal forms may actually be Qal passives because (1) no alteration in the basic meaning of the root occurs that accords with a true Pual or Hophal, (2) the forms look like Pual in the perfect and Hophal in the imperfect, (3) ל in לָקַח assimilates as it does only in the Qal, and (4) the participle does not have prefix מ

So actually the Qal passive theory is based on perceived weaknesses of the Masoretic pointing in those particular instances.

Ross gives two examples: Psalm 139:15 (Qal עָשָׂה, to do, make ) and Gen 12:15. (Qal לָקַח, to take)

Jonathan,

What do you think about the verb we were discussing? Is it "to be dismayed" , "to be broken", or "to terrify" in Kal form, or more than one of these meanings?

Kenneth Greifer

Concerning 139:15.
עֻשֵּׂיתִי = ע-הוּא-שי-אתי
is with a first הוּא referring to the beneficiary of the act עש-היא = עשה. The last אתי, an obsolete form of אני, is for the narrator talking about himself.
Similarly
רֻקַּמְתִּי = ר-הוּא-קמ-אתי
is with a הוּא for the beneficiary of the act רקם, and אתי for the narrator talking about himself.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Kenneth Greifer wrote:Jonathan,

What do you think about the verb we were discussing? Is it "to be dismayed" , "to be broken", or "to terrify" in Kal form, or more than one of these meanings?

Kenneth Greifer

1. This form is a STATIVE form. This is no surprise since, semantically, the verb most often describes a state, or a state of mind. This is different from a PASSIVE verb. Which assumes the verb in its active form is transitive, that is, it calls for an object.

2. Notice just a few verses later, in Isaiah 31:4, לֹ֣א יֵחָ֔ת וּמֵֽהֲמֹונָ֖ם לֹ֣א יַֽעֲנֶ֑ה. Both verbs here are stative. "He is not terrified...neither is he daunted"

3. The idea of being "broken" doesn't fit. And I would only accept a figurative use of "broken" and it would describe a state not an action/passive action.

Jonathan,

I should have asked you about Isaiah 51:6 and Isaiah 9:3. Do you think they mean "broken" and "broke" or "will be dismayed" or something like that?

Kenneth Greifer

I think that Isaiah 9:3 could also say "the yoke...You broke..." or "with the yoke...You caused to be dismayed (You terrified)..."

Kenneth Greifer

Kenneth Greifer wrote:I think that Isaiah 9:3 could also say "the yoke...You broke..." or "with the yoke...You caused to be dismayed (You terrified)..."

Kenneth Greifer

You're correct, but a literal translation is not helpful here. I think the idiomatic expression "you broke" is appropriate here. As long as the exegete of the text is aware that this verb does not mean "break" at its root.

I have another idea about Exodus 4:25-26. I think that Zipporah, Moses' wife, circumcised her son, and then she or the foreskin touched his feet or legs, and she said "Because their fear חתן is blood (bloodshed), you are mine, and He let go of him, then she said, their fear is blood (bloodshed) to circumcisions."

Maybe she and Moses did not circumcise their sons, so G-d tried to kill one of them, so she circumcised him. Maybe the blood that flowed down his legs made his legs jump around from fear of the blood. The ן for "their" at the end of the word "fear" could be because legs are a feminine plural noun. Maybe after she circumcised him, G-d stopped trying to kill their son.

In Jeremiah 50:2, it could say that Babylon's idols were afraid or were broken using the verb form of the word "fear" חת. If idols can be afraid, then maybe legs can be afraid too, not literally, of course.

Kenneth Greifer

Now that I think about it. I think Isaiah 9:3 is mistranslated partially. Maybe it says "because with the yoke of his burden and with the staff of his shoulder, the rod of the oppressor against him You broke like the day of Midian."

Maybe it means G-d broke all of those things at the same time and that was why the nation was rejoicing in the verses before this.

Kenneth Greifer

Try the softer 'recoil, retreat, remove', instead of the harsh 'break'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University