מְשָׁרַת vs. מְשָׁרֶתֶת

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: מְשָׁרַת vs. מְשָׁרֶתֶת

Post by Jason Hare »

Karl:
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:05 am
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:56 am 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've hesitated in my response because I don't see what headway can be made when (1) your grasp of biblical Hebrew grammar is not strong enough to even gauge when I'm dealing specifically with biblical Hebrew (there is no "infinitive construct" versus "infinitive absolute" in modern Hebrew — it's strictly a biblical point of grammar) and (2) you have absolutely no basis in any other period of the language from which to make the comparison. You don't know mishnaic Hebrew, you don't know modern Hebrew, and you think that "infinitive construct" is not part of biblical Hebrew grammar. It's hard to know where to begin.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:05 am First of all, the form is clearly a participle, the context indicating a piel participle.
Good. I knew from the beginning that it was a piel participle. My question was why it ended in -at rather than in -étet, which is the normal feminine singular form of a piel participle. Ducky gave a cogent and reasonable response. He was completely correct in what he suggested (as we can tell from other participles in the biblical text), and it should have stayed there. I really don't know what your "a reference to the action of serving" even means. My only guess could be that you were referring to what is known as the "infinitive construct." How could "a reference to the action of serving" be a Hebrew participle? This is really senseless.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:05 am
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:56 am This is not the function of a participle.
It clearly is one of the functions of Biblical Hebrew participles.
I think you'll find that you're mistaken. This is completely wrong.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:05 am
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:56 am 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”?
"A reference to the action of serving" is not a grammatical category. It is not accepted terminology. It doesn't mean anything. What label would you give it?
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:05 am
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:56 am 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.
If a participle is functioning substantively, it refers to the PERSON or thing that performs the action (or, in the case of passive participles, upon whom the action was performed) and not to the action itself. You're wrong.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:05 am
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:56 am 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.
Your question didn't make any sense.
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:05 am
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:56 am 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?
Because you gave it a label that doesn't correspond to any part of speech ("a reference to the action of serving"). If you're talking about the action itself, you would use an infinitive construct. In modern Hebrew, we would use the שם הפעולה (which is a grammatical category also used in the biblical text, but with less frequency). If you'd give a real grammatical label instead of expecting us to guess at your meaning, then I wouldn't have come away with a misunderstanding of your position. (I don't think I've misunderstood you, though; I just think you've mistaken the grammatical categories based on the fact that you're thinking of English, rather than Hebrew, grammar.)
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:05 am 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.
Given that you have no knowledge of mishnaic or modern Hebrew, you are not in a position to speak about this.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: מְשָׁרַת vs. מְשָׁרֶתֶת

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:05 am 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?
Of course. For example, צִפּוֹר ṣippôr / צִפֳּרִים ṣippŏrîm is grammatically feminine irrespective of the gender of the bird or of the person it is being used to describe in metaphor. There is no reason why a participle would do this, however (if that's what you were suggesting by this question).

To be clear, מְשָׁרַת məšāraṯ is feminine singular (an alternative of מְשָׁרֶ֫תֶת), and מְשָׁרֵת məšārēṯ is masculine singular. Ducky gave the correct and obvious explanation (məšāraṯ ← *məšāraṯt). It is simply the form that we would get if the segolate had not been resolved. The same as the few instances of יֹלַדְתְּ that we see in the Bible instead of יֹלֶ֫דֶת (cf. Gen 16.11; Judg 13.5,7), even though you reject the points. They obviously point to older forms (before the resolution of word-final consonant clusters). Arguing against this explanation makes no sense at all.

We see the original form of the segolate in the forms חֹתַנְתּוֹ and אֹמַנְתּוֹ for חֹתֶ֫נֶת "mother-in-law" and אֹמֶ֫נֶת "nurse" in Deut 27.23 and 2 Sam 4:4, respectively. Isaiah 13.8 and 21.3 also has יוֹלֵדָה as an alternative form of יוֹלֶ֫דֶת, and we shouldn't forget that we find other alternative qal participles in the feminine singular (שֹֽׁפְטָה for שֹׁפֶ֫טֶת and אֹֽכְלָה for אֹכֶ֫לֶת [אוֹכֵלָה in Isa 29.6 and others]). We have to think of מְשָׁרַת simply as an alternative form for מְשָׁרֶ֫תֶת with the resolution of the consonant cluster by assimilation rather than by inserting the segols. Any argument to the contrary is clearly absurd.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: מְשָׁרַת vs. מְשָׁרֶתֶת

Post by kwrandolph »

Isaac Fried wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:31 pm Are there examples for Hebrew words of different meaning in Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew?

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
Yes there are examples of such and some have been shown to me. But because Mishnaic Hebrew is outside of my realm of interest, I didn’t keep a list of those words. Today I don’t know where to look to give a list to you.

I don’t want to study Mishnaic Hebrew so that it has no opportunity to corrupt my understanding of Biblical Hebrew.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: מְשָׁרַת vs. מְשָׁרֶתֶת

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 7:32 am I don’t want to study Mishnaic Hebrew so that it has no opportunity to corrupt my understanding of Biblical [sic] Hebrew.
Is the word "corrupt" here intended to imply that you have a pure understanding of biblical Hebrew?

This is similar to someone saying that their understanding of Shakespeare will be spoiled if they learn to speak modern English. I mean, sure there are differences of meanings in some words. Sure we express ourselves less poetically. Sure the forms of the language aren't identical. But, if you don't speak English fluently, you're gonna have a heck of time really understanding Shakespeare, despite your protestations to the contrary. Anyone who maintains that their comprehension of Shakespeare is kept pure by their refusal to learn to actually speak any form of the language at all will not be taken seriously.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: מְשָׁרַת vs. מְשָׁרֶתֶת

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:05 am 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?
Of course. For example, צִפּוֹר ṣippôr / צִפֳּרִים ṣippŏrîm is grammatically feminine irrespective of the gender of the bird or of the person it is being used to describe in metaphor.
I wasn’t thinking of that, rather similar to the Greek διακονος which is masculine irrespective of whether or not the person is male or female.
Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm There is no reason why a participle would do this, however (if that's what you were suggesting by this question).
You don̉’t know. I don’t know. Nobody knows. All we know for certain is that Mishnaic Hebrew, and its daughters of Tiberian and modern Israeli Hebrews, are radically different from Biblical Hebrew.
Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm To be clear, מְשָׁרַת məšāraṯ is feminine singular (an alternative of מְשָׁרֶ֫תֶת), and מְשָׁרֵת məšārēṯ is masculine singular.
The only way you think that is because of the Masoretic points. Without the Masoretic points, there’s no evidence whatsoever that it is a feminine adjective.
Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm Ducky gave the correct and obvious explanation (məšāraṯ ← *məšāraṯt). It is simply the form that we would get if the segolate had not been resolved. The same as the few instances of יֹלַדְתְּ that we see in the Bible instead of יֹלֶ֫דֶת (cf. Gen 16.11; Judg 13.5,7),
Those examples in Genesis and Judges are Qatal Qal verbs, not participles.
Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm even though you reject the points. They obviously point to older forms (before the resolution of word-final consonant clusters). Arguing against this explanation makes no sense at all.
We have to deal with what we have, not theoretical constructs that may not be correct.
Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm We see the original form of the segolate in the forms חֹתַנְתּוֹ and אֹמַנְתּוֹ for חֹתֶ֫נֶת "mother-in-law" and אֹמֶ֫נֶת "nurse" in Deut 27.23 and 2 Sam 4:4, respectively. Isaiah 13.8 and 21.3 also has יוֹלֵדָה as an alternative form of יוֹלֶ֫דֶת,
Nope. Every time you find יולדה it refers to the action of giving birth, while the four times יולדת us used, it refers to the birth mother, the woman who gave birth.
Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm and we shouldn't forget that we find other alternative qal participles in the feminine singular (שֹֽׁפְטָה for שֹׁפֶ֫טֶת
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, as there’s no feminine participle שפטת in Tanakh. The Qatal feminine verb שפטה is found, e.g. Judges 4:4.
Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm and אֹֽכְלָה for אֹכֶ֫לֶת [אוֹכֵלָה in Isa 29.6 and others]).
The adjective אוכלה is found three times, each time describing fire Isaiah 29:6, 30:30 and 33:14.
The noun אכלה refers to food, what is eaten. The same consonantal form is found as a verb. I didn’t analyze all the places where it is found in this answer to you.
A quick spot check of אכלת found only verbs, no participles.
Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm We have to think of מְשָׁרַת simply as an alternative form for מְשָׁרֶ֫תֶת with the resolution of the consonant cluster by assimilation rather than by inserting the segols. Any argument to the contrary is clearly absurd.
You have not given a good argument to back up your claim of consonant cluster assimilation. Hence my questions still stand.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: מְשָׁרַת vs. מְשָׁרֶתֶת

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:02 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 7:32 am I don’t want to study Mishnaic Hebrew so that it has no opportunity to corrupt my understanding of Biblical [sic] Hebrew.
Is the word "corrupt" here intended to imply that you have a pure understanding of biblical Hebrew?
Nobody has a pure understanding of Biblical Hebrew.

However, the closer the cognate languages one studies to each other, the harder it is to keep them separate in one’s mind. Each corrupts the understanding of the other.
Jason Hare wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:02 pm This is similar to someone saying that their understanding of Shakespeare will be spoiled if they learn to speak modern English. I mean, sure there are differences of meanings in some words. Sure we express ourselves less poetically. Sure the forms of the language aren't identical.
I, a native speaker of modern English, cannot read and understand Shakespeare. What causes me not to understand him are not the words that have gone out of use, rather the words and phrases still in use but have different meanings today.
Jason Hare wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:02 pm But, if you don't speak English fluently, you're gonna have a heck of time really understanding Shakespeare, despite your protestations to the contrary.
Who said that it would be easy? All I say is that if the only English he knows is Shakespeare’s English, he could better understand Shakespeare accurately than I, whose native tongue is modern English.
Jason Hare wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:02 pm Anyone who maintains that their comprehension of Shakespeare is kept pure by their refusal to learn to actually speak any form of the language at all will not be taken seriously.
Just as seriously as the claim that learning to speak modern Israeli Hebrew equips one accurately to read Tanakh which was written in a language where several words have different meanings and the grammar radically differs.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: מְשָׁרַת vs. מְשָׁרֶתֶת

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:56 pm All we know for certain is that Mishnaic Hebrew, and its daughters of Tiberian and modern Israeli Hebrews, are radically different from Biblical Hebrew.
If someone knows biblical Hebrew well, I don't think they're "radically" different. I simply don't agree.
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:56 pm
Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm To be clear, מְשָׁרַת məšāraṯ is feminine singular (an alternative of מְשָׁרֶ֫תֶת), and מְשָׁרֵת məšārēṯ is masculine singular.
The only way you think that is because of the Masoretic points. Without the Masoretic points, there’s no evidence whatsoever that it is a feminine adjective.
No. The whole point of this thread was that the form of the word seemed odd to me. It should be a feminine participle no matter how the Masoretes pointed it. It has to be feminine because the noun placed with it is feminine (Avishag). Obviously.
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:56 pm
Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm Ducky gave the correct and obvious explanation (məšāraṯ ← *məšāraṯt). It is simply the form that we would get if the segolate had not been resolved. The same as the few instances of יֹלַדְתְּ that we see in the Bible instead of יֹלֶ֫דֶת (cf. Gen 16.11; Judg 13.5,7),
Those examples in Genesis and Judges are Qatal Qal verbs, not participles.
Only to you. To the rest of the world, they are participles. Your idiosyncrasies are leading you to false conclusions again.
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:56 pm Nope. Every time you find יולדה it refers to the action of giving birth, while the four times יולדת us used, it refers to the birth mother, the woman who gave birth.
Isaiah 13:8b (NRSV)
Pangs and agony will seize them;
they will be in anguish like a woman in labor.

Isaiah 21:3b (NRSV)
pangs have seized me,
like the pangs of a woman in labor;

Every time that I read the verses with יולדה, I see them referring to a woman in labor pangs, not to "the action of giving birth" (which would be לֵדָה, another of those pesky שמות פעולה that I mentioned previously, an alternative form of the infinitive construct in the Bible). Both יולדת and יולדה refer to the woman who is giving birth.
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:56 pm
Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm and we shouldn't forget that we find other alternative qal participles in the feminine singular (שֹֽׁפְטָה for שֹׁפֶ֫טֶת
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, as there’s no feminine participle שפטת in Tanakh. The Qatal feminine verb שפטה is found, e.g. Judges 4:4.
I was talking about the forms that a word can appear in. I know that שֹׁפֶ֫טֶת doesn't exist in the Bible, but that's because the fs participle of this word is only used ONCE in the biblical text. Had it been used more, it could have appeared both as שֹׁפֶ֫טֶת and as שֹׁפְטָה. The point is that these are alternative forms for the same thing. Why do I feel like you're intentionally misunderstanding?
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:56 pm
Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm and אֹֽכְלָה for אֹכֶ֫לֶת [אוֹכֵלָה in Isa 29.6 and others]).
The adjective אוכלה is found three times, each time describing fire Isaiah 29:6, 30:30 and 33:14.
The noun אכלה refers to food, what is eaten. The same consonantal form is found as a verb. I didn’t analyze all the places where it is found in this answer to you.
A quick spot check of אכלת found only verbs, no participles.
Your quick spot checks are faulty.

Fire is described with the fs participle אֹכֶ֫לֶת in Exodus 24:17:

Exodus 24:17
וּמַרְאֵה֙ כְּבֹ֣וד יְהוָ֔ה כְּאֵ֥שׁ אֹכֶ֖לֶת בְּרֹ֣אשׁ הָהָ֑ר לְעֵינֵ֖י בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

This should be compared to the following:

Deuteronomy 9:3
וְיָדַעְתָּ֣ הַיּ֗וֹם כִּי֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהֶ֜יךָ הֽוּא־הָעֹבֵ֤ר לְפָנֶ֙יךָ֙ אֵ֣שׁ אֹֽכְלָ֔ה ה֧וּא יַשְׁמִידֵ֛ם וְה֥וּא יַכְנִיעֵ֖ם לְפָנֶ֑יךָ וְהֽוֹרַשְׁתָּ֤ם וְהַֽאַבַדְתָּם֙ מַהֵ֔ר כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה לָֽךְ׃

Both forms are participles.
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:56 pm
Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm We have to think of מְשָׁרַת simply as an alternative form for מְשָׁרֶ֫תֶת with the resolution of the consonant cluster by assimilation rather than by inserting the segols. Any argument to the contrary is clearly absurd.
You have not given a good argument to back up your claim of consonant cluster assimilation. Hence my questions still stand.
What I'm consistently getting is that you don't now how to recognize a participle in Hebrew.

Attachment: לידה in the lexicon HALOT. This is the word for the act of giving birth.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: מְשָׁרַת vs. מְשָׁרֶתֶת

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 3:24 pm All I say is that if the only English he knows is Shakespeare’s English, he could better understand Shakespeare accurately than I, whose native tongue is modern English.
Absolutely not. He will know what he has memorized from a text. He will not know the layers of meaning and emotion behind that text, like a well-educated native speaker would.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: מְשָׁרַת vs. מְשָׁרֶתֶת

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:34 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 3:24 pm All I say is that if the only English he knows is Shakespeare’s English, he could better understand Shakespeare accurately than I, whose native tongue is modern English.
Absolutely not. He will know what he has memorized from a text. He will not know the layers of meaning and emotion behind that text, like a well-educated native speaker would.
There’s the rub. Today there are no native speakers of Shakespeare’s English.

Karl W. Randolph.
ducky
Posts: 766
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: מְשָׁרַת vs. מְשָׁרֶתֶת

Post by ducky »

Without getting into the conversation itself, I just want to say that when I wrote before that the form was "ratt", I think it is better to say that this "ratt" was based on "ritt" first (which the rit-->rat).
It doesn't change a thing, But I just had to say it.
David Hunter
Post Reply