מְשָׁרַת vs. מְשָׁרֶתֶת

[Isaac Fried]

Jason writes

«"Dog" is not Hebrew, so it means nothing. Only Hebrew words have meaning.» Is that your claim, Isaac?

Jason, I am not sure how you got from "participle" to "dog". In any event, the letter mem of מְשָׁרַת is not placed there to "serve to form a participle". No.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

Derived conjugations. In the derived conjugations (except Nifal) the participle is formed with the preformative מ.

[Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006), 137.]

Waltke and O'Connor An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax spend about twenty pages talking about the uses and meanings of the participle in Hebrew (pp. 612–631).

Gesenius addresses participles in section 50 of his Hebrew Grammar.

Seow discusses the uses of the participle on pages 81–84, and the forms are addressed in each chapter's individual discussion of the various binyanim. Regarding the piel in specific, Seow writes:

The Piel participle is marked by a prefix מְ—, a páṯaḥ under the first radical, and the characteristic doubling of the second radical: מְקַטֵּל.

[C.L. Seow, A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew (Revised Edition) (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 176.]

You cannot just declare that there is no such thing as a participle in Hebrew without going against every single grammar of the biblical language that exists in writing. You don't get to do that without a GREAT DEAL of evidence on your side. The problem is that you have ZERO evidence. You just have an idiosyncratic theory that holds up only in your mind. It corresponds to nothing in reality, and it's really bold and arrogant of you to proclaim everyone else in the world wrong but yourself right when you have no knowledge at all of linguistics or of how languages work generally. You've generalized your thinking into a system that addresses peculiarities of the Hebrew language, but that system is only in your thought. It doesn't address how languages work, and it has nothing to do with the realities that the Hebrew language presents us with.

[Jason Hare]

Jason writes

«"Dog" is not Hebrew, so it means nothing. Only Hebrew words have meaning.» Is that your claim, Isaac?

Jason, I am not sure how you got from "participle" to "dog".

I can only assume that your premise in saying that "participle" means nothing is that only Hebrew words have meaning. Therefore, "dog" means nothing, "cat" means nothing, and "television" means nothing. Only Hebrew words contain meaning. That must be your premise if you say that "participle" means nothing, because "participle" certainly means something and has a specific meaning.

[kwrandolph]

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?

Who said it’s not a participle? Did you read what I wrote?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Who said it’s not a participle? Did you read what I wrote?

What you wrote specifically was:

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

I can only assume that "a reference to the action of serving" would be what we say is a "gerund" in English and what would be an "infinitive construct" in Hebrew. I don't know what else you could mean. This is not the function of a participle. Infinitive constructs are indeed grammatically masculine. I don't know what else you might be referring to. Use accepted terminology to be clear about your meaning.

It would also seem that understanding it as "serving" (in the sense of the action) is confusing categories based on the English -ing ending, which has nothing at all to do with Hebrew. As a participle, it is feminine and refers to Avishag "serving" the king in his old age. If it were an infinitive construct, we would expect the form שָׁרֵת šārēṯ (which later became שֵׁרוּת šērûṯ in the mishnaic period). It seems to me that you're making some kind of category error based on the idea that both gerunds (infinitive constructs) and participles translate into English with -ing.

[Jonathan Beck]

::munches his popcorn::

[Isaac Fried]

Jason writes

I can only assume that "a reference to the action of serving" would be what we say is a "gerund" in English and what would be an "infinitive construct" in Hebrew. I don't know what else you could mean. This is not the function of a participle. Infinitive constructs are indeed grammatically masculine. I don't know what else you might be referring to. Use accepted terminology to be clear about your meaning.
It would also seem that understanding it as "serving" (in the sense of the action) is confusing categories based on the English -ing ending, which has nothing at all to with Hebrew. As a participle, it is feminine and refers to Avishag "serving" the king in his old age. If it were an infinitive construct, we would expect the form שָׁרֵת šārēṯ (which later became שֵׁרוּת šērûṯ in the mishnaic period). It seems to me that you're making some kind of category error based on the idea that both gerunds (infinitive constructs) and participles translate into English with -ing.

And all this for the simple, clear, straightforward and obvious Hebrew
וַאֲבִישַׁג הַשּׁוּנַמִּית מְשָׁרַת אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ
KJV: "and Abishag the Shunammite ministered unto the king"
NIV: "where Abishag the Shunammite was attending him"

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

And all this for the simple, clear, straightforward and obvious Hebrew
וַאֲבִישַׁג הַשּׁוּנַמִּית מְשָׁרַת אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ
KJV: "and Abishag the Shunammite ministered unto the king"
NIV: "where Abishag the Shunammite was attending him"

I don't disagree that the meaning is simple, and the question was very aptly answered by David (ducky) in his first response. Don't complain to me that Karl gave a weird response after that which needed to be answered.

[kwrandolph]

Who said it’s not a participle? Did you read what I wrote?

What you wrote specifically was:

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

I can only assume that "a reference to the action of serving" would be what we say is a "gerund" in English and what would be an "infinitive construct" in Hebrew.

Maybe in modern Israeli Hebrew, but not Biblical Hebrew.

I don't know what else you could mean.

First of all, the form is clearly a participle, the context indicating a piel participle.

This is not the function of a participle.

It clearly is one of the functions of Biblical Hebrew participles.

Infinitive constructs are indeed grammatically masculine. I don't know what else you might be referring to. Use accepted terminology to be clear about your meaning.

What about my question was not “accepted terminology”?

It would also seem that understanding it as "serving" (in the sense of the action) is confusing categories based on the English -ing ending, which has nothing at all to do with Hebrew.

The participle is a noun or adjective, that has several uses in Biblical Hebrew, not all of which are related to the English -ing ending.

As a participle, it is feminine and refers to Avishag "serving" the king in his old age.

The form here is a masculine singular, which is why I raised my questions.

If it were an infinitive construct, we would expect the form שָׁרֵת šārēṯ (which later became שֵׁרוּת šērûṯ in the mishnaic period). It seems to me that you're making some kind of category error based on the idea that both gerunds (infinitive constructs) and participles translate into English with -ing.

Well, it’s not an infinitive construct, so why even bring that up? Nor is it Mishnaic Hebrew, a language that has not only different definitions for some words, but also a different grammar from Biblical Hebrew. Because Biblical Hebrew had ceased being natively spoken centuries before the DSS period, nor was DSS Hebrew, and its later variants of Mishnaic and Tiberian Hebrews, natively spoken, means that we don’t know Biblical Hebrew language as well as some of us wish we knew. Oh we know Biblical Hebrew well enough to get the main gist of the story—it’s when we get to some of the more unusual constructs that we stumble. We guess, based on what we know, but there’s always the chance that we’re wrong.

Another thought that just came to mind: are there nouns that are found in only one gender, irrespective of the sex of the person connected to that noun? That was true in other languages, is it true for Biblical Hebrew too?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

Karl writes

Well, it’s not an infinitive construct, so why even bring that up? Nor is it Mishnaic Hebrew, a language that has not only different definitions for some words, but also a different grammar from Biblical Hebrew. Because Biblical Hebrew had ceased being natively spoken centuries before the DSS period, nor was DSS Hebrew, and its later variants of Mishnaic and Tiberian Hebrews, natively spoken, means that we don’t know Biblical Hebrew language as well as some of us wish we knew.

Are there examples for Hebrew words of different meaning in Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com