לקח in 2 Kings 2:10

[Isaac Fried]

Jason asks

What is the "form" of l-U-kax? What is a "form"?

The form is the distribution of the added personal references.

In לֻקַּ֫חְתָּ, does the internal U vowel represent the beneficiary אַתָּה, while the internal U in לֻקְּחָה represents the beneficiary הִיא?

Yes! The externally suffixed pronoun qualifies the internal pronoun. To wit:
לֻקַּ֫חְתָּ = לוּקח-את, 'you were taken away', (as opposed to לקחת, 'you took away)
לֻקְּחָה = לוּקח-היא, 'she was taken away', (as opposed to לקחה, she took away)

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

Jason asks

What is the "form" of l-U-kax? What is a "form"?

The form is the distribution of the added personal references.

In לֻקַּ֫חְתָּ, does the internal U vowel represent the beneficiary אַתָּה, while the internal U in לֻקְּחָה represents the beneficiary הִיא?

Yes! The externally suffixed pronoun qualifies the internal pronoun. To wit:
לֻקַּ֫חְתָּ = לוּקח-את, 'you were taken away', (as opposed to לקחת, 'you took away)
לֻקְּחָה = לוּקח-היא, 'she was taken away', (as opposed to לקחה, she took away)

Well, I think that 'a' vowel is indicative of the situation in which the beneficiary is discovered at the time of the action. Eve was certainly "taken away" from Adam when she was created (or, at least, when Adam gave her a name), and don't forget that Enosh was "born away" from Seth in Genesis 4:26. The 'u' in yulad was the beneficiary of the birth, and the 'a' was the situation in which the beneficiary was found upon his being benefited. So, 'u' means 'Enosh,' and 'a' means 'being birthed,' and 'y-l-d' was the action itself.

I love how this really explains every single part of the word. It feels so fulfilling. More like magic than language. Just adore it!

[Isaac Fried]

Jason writes

Well, I think that 'a' vowel is indicative of the situation in which the beneficiary is discovered at the time of the action.

No. No one even begins to think that the 'a' vowel is "indicative" of the "situation" in which the beneficiary is "discovered" at "the time of the action."
Here is Gen. 4:26
וּלְשֵׁת גַּם הוּא יֻלַּד בֵּן, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ אֱנוֹשׁ אָז הוּחַל, לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יהוה
in which
יֻלַּד = י-הוּא-לד, with internal הוּא standing for the son אֱנוֹש
וַיִּקְרָא = בא-היא-קרא, with היא standing for שֵׁת
הוּחַל = הוּא-חל, with הוּא standing for the practice.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

Isaac Fried wrote:

No. No one even begins to think that the 'a' vowel is "indicative" of the "situation" in which the beneficiary is "discovered" at "the time of the action."

Wait... are you saying that the truth of a proposition is dependent on others (academia? scholarship? experts in language and linguistics?) thinking that something is a worthwhile proposition? Does this mean that it isn't enough to simply throw out wild speculations that have no support in the academic literature or among Hebrew grammarians? This comment has me a bit confused regarding your methodology. I'm simply parroting back to you what you're doing.

Here is Gen. 4:26
וּלְשֵׁת גַּם הוּא יֻלַּד בֵּן, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ אֱנוֹשׁ אָז הוּחַל, לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יהוה
in which
יֻלַּד = י-הוּא-לד, with internal הוּא standing for the son אֱנוֹש
וַיִּקְרָא = בא-היא-קרא, with היא standing for שֵׁת
הוּחַל = הוּא-חל, with הוּא standing for the practice.

Yes, obviously. Don't forget that יֻלַּד = י-הוּא-ל-◌ַ-ד in which י stands for God's name and the number 10, ◌ֻ stands for the beneficiary, ל stands for the father of the son and the number 30, ◌ַ stands for the situation of the birth, and ד stands for the mother of the son and the number four.

Oh, and the dagesh in the lamed is there randomly and means that we should consider the father to have more importance than the mother, which is why he is marked with a special dot in this specific case. In another random case, it might be the mother that is given emphasis (as in דּ).

After all, if "הוּא stand[s] for the practice," then ד stands for the mother. It's the same amount of weird speculative letter games by which וְ "and" somehow really means בָּא "coming," the yod inside a verb somehow means "she," and וַיִּקְרָא "and he called" really means בא-היא-קרא "coming-she-he called." Come on, already...

This is, if what you're doing is to make any sense, apparently how language works. Isn't it weird when someone shows you the strangeness of your methodology? You can see for yourself that it's absurd. This is called argumentum ad absurdum, by which the weakness of the method is demonstrated by taking it further than the one proposing it, carrying it to its logical conclusion to show that it is absurd.

[Jason Hare]

Isaac,

I realize that you've invested a lot of time, thought, and energy in your specific approach to Hebrew. I know that you think that it answers a lot of questions that people don't (and probably should) ask about the development of the language and its character. I know that you're absolutely convinced that this is really how the language works at its core.

It pains me to realize that someone so bright has become so invested in such a poorly constructed theory that isn't based in how any language works - any language at all. I don't know what I could possibly do, though, to demonstrate that Hebrew should be approached like any other language, that it should be analyzed in terms of how it expresses real-life concepts. It should be compared to its sister languages (especially Aramaic and Arabic, but also Ugaritic, Akkadian, Ge'ez, etc.). We should understand it from its context, not from concepts about inserted personal pronouns and other oddities like this. That isn't how language functions. Not English, not Spanish, and not Hebrew. It just doesn't correspond to anything in the real world.

It's also problematic that students come to B-Hebrew with questions about the structure of the biblical language, and they get presented things that are not supported by any academic literature - and not just presented as personal opinions but something along the lines of gospel truth. Someone asks about a passive form from the Bible, and they get told that a vocalic infix means "he" or "she" and given some weird combination of interpretational acrobatics. This is not in line with academia and should not be presented to students as anything other than wild speculation.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason writes

Oh, and the dagesh in the lamed is there randomly and means that we should consider the father to have more importance than the mother, which is why he is marked with a special dot in this specific case. In another random case, it might be the mother that is given emphasis (as in דּ).

The dagesh in the lamed stands for the qubutz under the yod.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

@Glenn

I was thinking on this today while I was out walking, and I think it's unfortunate that we call both קֻטָּל and קָטוּל by the same name ("qal passive participle").

What we have is the "participle of the qal passive" (that is, קֻטָּל) and the "passive of the qal participle" (that is, קָטוּל). That is to say that the qal passive has its own fragmentary paradigm, and there is a participle that is included as part of that paradigm. On the other hand, the qal (which is generally active in theory) has a participle (קֹטֵל) that also takes a passive form (קָטוּל).

We really should distinguish these two things in our terminology, but they both come out as "qal passive participle," which is (again) unfortunate.

[Jason Hare]

The dagesh in the lamed stands for the qubutz under the yod.

I'm impressed that you have discovered a correlation between qubuts (and ḥirik) and dagesh. That's impressive and something that most casual readers wouldn't have caught up on.

However, you're looking at it incorrectly. The dagesh is not there because of the qubuts. It is there to close the syllable in which the qubuts is found in order to allow for a short vowel to stand. In unaccented syllables, short vowels can be present when the syllable is closed. If the syllable is open, the vowel must be long. That's the function of the dagesh - to double the letter so that it closes the previous syllable and opens the next (serving two functions).

Qubuts can stand in an open syllable, though. That is, it can stand in an unaccented syllable that is open. How is this possible? Qubuts can represent either a long or a short vowel. If, for example, the Masoretes had received a verse in which שמרים was clearly supposed to be read as שְׁמוּרִים, it could be pointed as שְׁמֻרִים without violating any rule. The qubuts would simply be considered long (šəmūrîm instead of šəmûrîm).

For example, in Genesis 41:23 we have the following:

וְהִנֵּה֙ שֶׁ֣בַע שִׁבֳּלִ֔ים צְנֻמֹ֥ות דַּקֹּ֖ות שְׁדֻפֹ֣ות‬ קָדִ֑ים צֹמְחֹ֖ות אַחֲרֵיהֶֽם‬׃

According to your theory, both of the words in red should have a dagesh after the qubuts (that is, as צְנֻמּוֹת ṣənummôṯ and שְׁדֻפּוֹת‬ šəduppôṯ). However, given that this form (the qal passive participle) has a long vowel in that position (normally a shuruk), it can have a long qubuts in that position instead, which doesn't require the syllable to be closed. Thus, ṣənūmôṯ and šəḏūp̄ôṯ are perfectly acceptable.

Normally, when someone creates a theory, the theory can be demonstrated to be false by calling up counterarguments or examples that demonstrate that the theory is incorrect. I suspect, though, that no matter how many examples I could call up from the text of the Bible to demonstrate that dagesh is not there because of qubuts, you would could to be convinced of the theory that you've created, although it is contrary to every single grammar of the Hebrew language that exists. The ball is in your court, though.

[Jason Hare]

To add to the conterargument:

Exodus 13:18
וַיַּסֵּ֨ב אֱלֹהִ֧ים׀ אֶת־הָעָ֛ם דֶּ֥רֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּ֖ר יַם־ס֑וּף וַחֲמֻשִׁ֛ים עָל֥וּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃

Exodus 29:2
וְלֶ֣חֶם מַצֹּ֗ות וְחַלֹּ֤ת מַצֹּת֙ בְּלוּלֹ֣ת בַּשֶּׁ֔מֶן וּרְקִיקֵ֥י מַצֹּ֖ות ‬מְשֻׁחִ֣ים בַּשָּׁ֑מֶן סֹ֥לֶת חִטִּ֖ים תַּעֲשֶׂ֥ה אֹתָֽם׃

Exodus 30:11
כִּ֣י תִשָּׂ֞א אֶת־רֹ֥אשׁ בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֮ לִפְקֻדֵיהֶם֒ וְנָ֨תְנ֜וּ אִ֣ישׁ כֹּ֧פֶר נַפְשֹׁ֛ו לַיהוָ֖ה ‬בִּפְקֹ֣ד אֹתָ֑ם וְלֹא־יִהְיֶ֥ה בָהֶ֛ם נֶ֖גֶף בִּפְקֹ֥ד אֹתָֽם׃

Exodus 32:15
וַיִּ֜פֶן וַיֵּ֤רֶד מֹשֶׁה֙ מִן־הָהָ֔ר וּשְׁנֵ֛י לֻחֹ֥ת הָעֵדֻ֖ת בְּיָדֹ֑ו לֻחֹ֗ת כְּתֻבִים֙ מִשְּׁנֵ֣י עֶבְרֵיהֶ֔ם מִזֶּ֥ה וּמִזֶּ֖ה הֵ֥ם כְּתֻבִֽים׃

This is just a few verses from Exodus. This can be repeated all over the Bible. There are PLENTY of examples in which we find ◌ֻ with no dagesh following it. It is clear that your theory is incorrect.

[Jason Hare]

As engaging as this is, be aware that Tel Aviv is under rocket attack, and I'm stationed down in the basement of my apartment building. I don't anticipate being very responsive for the rest of the day.