Re: מְשָׁרַת vs. מְשָׁרֶתֶת
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:30 pm
Karl:
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 amMaybe in modern Israeli Hebrew, but not Biblical Hebrew.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.
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 First of all, the form is clearly a participle, the context indicating a piel participle.
I think you'll find that you're mistaken. This is completely wrong.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:05 amIt clearly is one of the functions of Biblical Hebrew participles.
"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 amWhat about my question was not “accepted terminology”?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.
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 amThe participle is a noun or adjective, that has several uses in Biblical Hebrew, not all of which are related to the English -ing ending.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.
Your question didn't make any sense.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:05 amThe form here is a masculine singular, which is why I raised my questions.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.
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 amWell, it’s not an infinitive construct, so why even bring that up?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.
Given that you have no knowledge of mishnaic or modern Hebrew, you are not in a position to speak about this.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.