מְשָׁרַת vs. מְשָׁרֶתֶת

[Jason Hare]

1 Kings 1:15
וַתָּבֹ֨א בַת־שֶׁ֤בֶע אֶל־הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ הַחַ֔דְרָה וְהַמֶּ֖לֶךְ זָקֵ֣ן מְאֹ֑ד וַֽאֲבִישַׁג֙ הַשּׁ֣וּנַמִּ֔ית מְשָׁרַ֖ת אֶת־הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃

How would you explain the form מְשָׁרַת rather than an anticipated participle מְשָׁרֶתֶת.

[ducky]

Hi Jason,

Every Segolate form is actually a development of a one-syllable form.
So the word ילד=yeled evolved from the old form of "yald".
(and this old form still appears in ילדה="yald+a" or ילדי="yald+i")

This Segolate form appears also inside words.
Just like in the word משרתת="mesha+retet"
This ending "retet" is based on "ratt".
And the old pronunciation was mesha+ratt (which then evolved to mesharetet).

So the spelling of משרת is actually mesharatt--->mesharat

[Jason Hare]

Gotcha. So, מְשָׁרַת is simply evincing the assimilation of a doubled tav with a silent sheva between them (מְשָׁרַתְתְּ‎ → מְשָׁרַתְּ‎ → מְשָׁרַת for the resolved מְשָׁרֶ֫תֶת), similar to how we find יֹלַדְתְּ for the regular (resolved) יֹלֶ֫דֶת. Brilliant! Thank you.

[ducky]

And see also 1Sam 4:19

[Jason Hare]

And see also 1Sam 4:19

וְכַלָּת֣וֹ אֵֽשֶׁת־פִּינְחָס֮ הָרָ֣ה לָלַת֒ וַתִּשְׁמַ֣ע אֶת־הַשְּׁמֻעָ֔ה אֶל־הִלָּקַח֙ אֲר֣וֹן הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים וּמֵ֥ת חָמִ֖יהָ וְאִישָׁ֑הּ וַתִּכְרַ֣ע וַתֵּ֔לֶד כִּֽי־נֶהֶפְכ֥וּ עָלֶ֖יהָ צִרֶֽיהָ׃

Wow! לָלַדְתְּ‎ → לָלַת for לָלֶ֫דֶת.

No wonder that segolates are my favorite feature of the language!

[kwrandolph]

1 Kings 1:15
וַתָּבֹ֨א בַת־שֶׁ֤בֶע אֶל־הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ הַחַ֔דְרָה וְהַמֶּ֖לֶךְ זָקֵ֣ן מְאֹ֑ד וַֽאֲבִישַׁג֙ הַשּׁ֣וּנַמִּ֔ית מְשָׁרַ֖ת אֶת־הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃

How would you explain the form מְשָׁרַת rather than an anticipated participle מְשָׁרֶתֶת.

Are you sure this is not a reference to the action of serving, which would be masculine?

Similar to the reference to Ruth’s waiting for permission from Boaz in Ruth 2:7 where her action was referenced with the masculine זה ?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

1 Kings 1:15
וַתָּבֹ֨א בַת־שֶׁ֤בֶע אֶל־הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ הַחַ֔דְרָה וְהַמֶּ֖לֶךְ זָקֵ֣ן מְאֹ֑ד וַֽאֲבִישַׁג֙ הַשּׁ֣וּנַמִּ֔ית מְשָׁרַ֖ת אֶת־הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃

How would you explain the form מְשָׁרַת rather than an anticipated participle מְשָׁרֶתֶת.

Are you sure this is not a reference to the action of serving, which would be masculine?

Could you read the context and then ask the same question or clarify in some way?

[Jason Hare]

We are specifically told that Avishag was serving the king:

וְהַמֶּ֤לֶךְ דָּוִד֙ זָקֵ֔ן בָּ֖א בַּיָּמִ֑ים וַיְכַסֻּ֨הוּ֙ בַּבְּגָדִ֔ים וְלֹ֥א יִחַ֖ם לֽוֹ׃ וַיֹּ֧אמְרוּ ל֣וֹ עֲבָדָ֗יו יְבַקְשׁ֞וּ לַֽאדֹנִ֤י הַמֶּ֨לֶךְ֙ נַֽעֲרָ֣ה בְתוּלָ֔ה וְעָֽמְדָה֙ לִפְנֵ֣י הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וּתְהִי־ל֖וֹ סֹכֶ֑נֶת וְשָֽׁכְבָ֣ה בְחֵיקֶ֔ךָ וְחַ֖ם לַֽאדֹנִ֥י הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃ וַיְבַקְשׁוּ֙ נַֽעֲרָ֣ה יָפָ֔ה בְּכֹ֖ל גְּב֣וּל יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַֽיִּמְצְא֗וּ אֶת־אֲבִישַׁג֙ הַשּׁ֣וּנַמִּ֔ית וַיָּבִ֥אוּ אֹתָ֖הּ לַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃ וְהַֽנַּעֲרָ֖ה יָפָ֣ה עַד־מְאֹ֑ד וַתְּהִ֨י לַמֶּ֤לֶךְ סֹכֶ֨נֶת֙ וַתְּשָׁ֣רְתֵ֔הוּ וְהַמֶּ֖לֶךְ לֹ֥א יְדָעָֽהּ׃

I'm confused how you can think that the word in the instance that I asked about was anything other than a participle.

וַתָּבֹ֨א בַת־שֶׁ֤בֶע אֶל־הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ הַחַ֔דְרָה וְהַמֶּ֖לֶךְ זָקֵ֣ן מְאֹ֑ד וַֽאֲבִישַׁג֙ הַשּׁ֣וּנַמִּ֔ית מְשָׁרַ֖ת אֶת־הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃

The verbless clause (null copula) הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ זָקֵ֣ן מְאֹ֑ד anticipates another verbless clause (a participle is a verbal adjective), which it receives in אֲבִישַׁג֙ הַשּׁ֣וּנַמִּ֔ית מְשָׁרַ֖ת אֶת־הַמֶּֽלֶךְ. I don't know how you could possibly be reading this final clause. It's clearly a participle. What else could you be reading it as?

[Isaac Fried]

The letter ת of מְשָׁרַת is radical, the root being שׁרת, 'serve'. It is not the PP את. The "prefixed" letter מ stands for אֲבִישַׁג הַשּׁוּנַמִּית the performer of the said act שׁרת. Namely, מְשָׁרַת = מי-שרת.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

The letter ת of מְשָׁרַת is radical, the root being שׁרת, 'serve'. It is not the PP את. The "prefixed" letter מ stands for אֲבִישַׁג הַשּׁוּנַמִּית the performer of the said act שׁרת. Namely, מְשָׁרַת = מי-שרת.

I can't understand why you keep posting things like this. There is nothing helpful to anyone's understanding that can be garnered by claiming that מ means the performer of the act. That means nothing. Do you really think that a prefixed mem means מי and that the participle actually means מי ששירת "the one who served"?