Genesis 6:1 "born"

[Isaac Fried]

Jason writes

The root of קָנָה is actually קנ״י [qof-nun-yod]. The heh is indeed only a vowel letter. Words like גָּבַהּ (with the dot in the heh, called mapik) have a real heh in the root.

Jason,
My question was not on the "reality" of the heh, but only on the "pattern", which I really need to learn and understand. So, קָנָה is CaCa and גָּבַהּ is CaCaC. Am I right?

Isaac Fried Boston University

[ducky]

We also see יֻקַּח in the Bible (in Genesis 18:4; Job 28:2; Isaiah 49:24, and 49:25). It would only make sense for a supposed pual imperfect 3ms to be יְלֻקַּח. The form יֻקַּח is quite clearly passive of יִקַּח, which is qal.

That's right.
But just to say that יֻקַּח is based on יֻלְקַח (looks like Hophal, but this is the form os the imperfect of the passive Qal).

[Isaac Fried]

ducky wrote

I didn't understand your point.
The fact that you understand the word and its meaning is not relevant.

What!? The fact that I see a verbal form in the HB and understand right away who does what to whom is not relevant? not relevant to what, to the theory of the "Qal passive"?

I just saw your claim that says that there is no Qal passive, and I gave examples of it in the bible.

Scusi, but I see no examples, only claims that certain verbal forms are "Qal passive".

There are cases that it is hard to decide if the form is Passive Piel (pual) or passive qal.
But mostly it is easy to see.

when you see Toraph, you know that the active is not "tereph" (in piel).
So surely, the Toraph keeps the form of the Qal.

When I see Toraph I know what it means, not what it is. As you yourself said it so well: it is what it is.

also with לֻקַּח - same thing.
Is there לִקֵּחַ in piel?
no
it is always Qal.

It is not clear to me what is "the same thing". Some verbs are attested in piel some not. So what?

Isaac Fried Boston University

[Jason Hare]

Jason writes

The root of קָנָה is actually קנ״י [qof-nun-yod]. The heh is indeed only a vowel letter. Words like גָּבַהּ (with the dot in the heh, called mapik) have a real heh in the root.

Jason,
My question was not on the "reality" of the heh, but only on the "pattern", which I really need to learn and understand. So, קָנָה is CaCa and גָּבַהּ is CaCaC. Am I right?

Isaac Fried Boston University

You are missing the length of the vowels, which is also part of the pattern.

גָּבָהּ is CāCaC (which is the strong pattern), which קָנָה is third-heh and CāCâ (marking â as the vowel with mater lectionis). We don't normally map out the weak verbs as CāCâ, but this technically correct. It would apply to בָּנָה BāNâ, עָשָׂה ʿāŚâ, תָּלָה TāLâ. I'm capitalizing the consonants here (aside from ʿ [ע]) to make them stand out from the vocal pattern. This is the pattern of roots that were originally third-yod or third-vav and have become third-heh in appearance.

We normally refer to patterns in strong verbs with nomenclature like this, not to weak verbs — but the visual pattern can indeed be represented in this way.

[ducky]

Hi Isaac,

It seems that I didn't manage to explain myself to you well enough.
I'll try again.

the meaning is not relevant because we're talking now about the form.
Sometimes two different forms have the same meaning, so the fact that one understand the meaning is not relevant to the form of the word itself.

I gave the example of לקח and asked if there is a "Piel". the answer is No as you know.
And the reason I asked that question is to let you understand that the verb לֻקַּח which seems like it is Pual - is not really Pual.
Why?

Let's start with a basic claim:
Each active form has also passive form from the same conjugation.

1. Piel/Pual
2. Hiphil/Hophal
3. Pa'al/?

You say that Niphal is the passive of qal.
You are right that the Niphal, through time took the "role" of qal passive.
But it is not the "real" passive.
And that is seen clearly and quickly just by looking at its form.
The forms of the active and passive are kinda similar
the passive of Pa'al should act in the same way.
And Niphal form is nothing like "pa'al" form.

so again
Piel/pual -- qittel/quttal (here, the t is doubled in both)
Hiphil/Hophal (here, the prefix H appears in both)

Pa'al/pual -- qatal/qutal-->quttal
The t here was originally without Dagesh (like the active form) but later on, the Dagesh was added after the short vowel, making it looks like "pual".

So when we see a form of "pual" (with Dagesh), we need to ask ourselves if it is the passive of Piel or the passive of Qal.

so when you see לֻקַּח which in the form of "quttal=pual" we need to ask ourselves if it is a passive of Pi'el.
the root לקח doesn't have an active verb pi'el. It doesn't have a partciple of Pie'l. It doesn't have a noun which based of Piel.
So why suddenly "pual"?
it is odd.

And so, this Pual form is actually a passive of paal (qal).

****
About forms like בנה
as Jason said, the root is really בני
and when we go back, the qatal, was qatala (with a suffix vowel)
and so, from root BNY it was banaya
the combintion of "aya" is a triphthong.
this type of "aya" was shrinked to "ā(h)"
and so we se בנה
while the verb בניתי keep the Y of the root
like שמרתי is שמר+תי
so בניתי is בני+תי

[Isaac Fried]

ducky writes

so when you see לֻקַּח which in the form of "quttal=pual" we need to ask ourselves if it is a passive of Pi'el.
the root לקח doesn't have an active verb pi'el. It doesn't have a partciple of Pie'l. It doesn't have a noun which based of Piel.
So why suddenly "pual"?
it is odd.

ducky,
It may be "odd" to you, but is not to me. Also, it is not "suddenly".

And so, this Pual form is actually a passive of paal (qal).

I am very very sorry, ducky, but I fail to recognize a common logic in your grammatical arguments. So I let it pass.

Isaac Fried Boston University

[ducky]

I also think it's better that you let it pass since you are "stuck".
You've been taught that Niphal is the passive of qal and therefore you cannot see anything beyond that.
you can see word like יֻתַּן - looks like Hophal.
But you know that root נתן don't act in Hiphil or anything like that.
But it acts as qal.
So what is יֻתַּן? it is the passive of qal.
You must see the pattern of how the roots act and try to analize the conjugation according to it.

About the logic...
I don't know what is not logical in what I wrote.
I wrote that the pual form (just the form) doesn't belong to the conjugation of piel/pual, but it belongs to paal/pual.

[kwrandolph]

(1) Why am I able to successfully read the narratives of the Tanach without trouble?

Is that true? Or to quote yourself below, are you doing “… if you read the same text with the same mistakes twenty times, you don't improve your knowledge of the text. You just reinforce your mistakes and make yourself feel that you have a better understanding of it - and that everyone else is just plain wrong.”?

“Narratives”? Do you limit yourself here to books like Samuel, Kings, Chronicles and other historical sections when you say “narratives”?

To give a concrete example—using your modern grammar, or the grammar taught by Weingreen and Gesenius, can you explain the verbal usages in Proverbs 31:10–31, where there is a mixture of Qatal and Yiqtol verbs in a context of continuous, present action, in a way applicable to all of Tanakh? Don’t give the cop-out that this is poetry, because poetry, especially poetry intended to teach, doesn’t accomplish its goal unless it uses the same grammar as prose.

(2) Why, when we were doing translation exercises, was I able to correct your expressions so often??

I don’t remember a single correction. I saw you disagree with me based on two main issues: that I didn’t include the vowel points and the method I used to come to my translations.

The method I used, which you didn’t like, was as follows:
1) I recognized the passage that Weingreen had paraphrased and tweaked
2) I copied and pasted the original passage
3) I tweaked the pasted passage to match the tweaks that Weingreen had made.

You corrected none of my tweaks. You could not “correct” what I didn’t tweak.

The result of my method is that I ended up with different syntax and different vocabulary from what Weingreen and you expected.

Shouldn't you have a better grasp of the language than those of us whose knowledge of the language has been influenced by the modern language??

How can that not be true?

(3) Shouldn't you be able to demonstrate that your system produces better results??

Well, just look at the evidence.

This would include your ability to pass it on to students, to show that it renders a better grasp of the language, to outshine the traditional method and produce students with a clearer understanding and use of the biblical language??

We don’t know the answer to this question, because it hasn’t been tried.

You're espousing a system that you think is better, but you yourself are ignorant of the modern language and not really in a position to tell us what is going on in the minds of people who come from a traditional training in the language.?

I have had “a traditional training in the language”. The professor taught according to Gesenius using the textbook by Weingreen. I rejected that training because I could not apply it consistently to what I read as I read Tanakh through cover to cover. At that time, the only way I could read it fluently, was to ignore grammar. Now I can incorporate the grammar I understand into all of the Tanakh as I read.

You haven't demonstrated anything that you're claiming.?

So far you have evinced an ignorance to what I try to teach.

It's all just claims and amateurish attempts to undermine the authority of those who are, for lack of a better term, real authorities on the subject.?

What makes them “real authorities”?

As far as I can tell, Gesenius was just a hack. His goal was to describe Hebrew language through the lens of German rationalism and anti-Semitism. The only Hebrew he knew was Tiberian Hebrew. I don’t see that he did the careful research needed to back up some of his claims. That is particularly true with his dictionaries, the area with which I am most familiar of his work.

If anyone wants to do better, should he not start with a clean slate and see if he comes to the same results? Not just work on the basis of Gesenius?

You've got things all mixed up. When we read the Bible with the Tiberian points, it doesn't mean that we're reading later or "medieval" grammar.

Oh? The reason the Masoretes chose the points they did, is because of the understandings they drew from Tiberian Hebrew.

The only people I've ever met who thought that modern Hebrew was not beneficial for reading biblical Hebrew are people—let's not all be surprised together!—who do not themselves know modern Hebrew.

How can that not be true? One less language to contaminate our understanding of Biblical Hebrew? Cognate languages are the worst contaminators.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

ducky writes

You've been taught that Niphal is the passive of qal and therefore you cannot see anything beyond that.

The Niphal is not the passive of qal, the Niphal is Niphal.

I wrote that the pual form (just the form) doesn't belong to the conjugation of piel/pual, but it belongs to paal/pual.

The pual form is פֻּעַל. It does not "belong" to no nothing.

Isaac Fried Boston University

[kwrandolph]

The Hebrew matres lectiones began to be used even before the Masoretes

Yes, they were used during the late second temple period. But they have messed up much of our understanding of Biblical Hebrew. Because they were used in late second temple period, the assumption has been made that many letters in the text were matres lectiones, when in their use in Biblical Hebrew they weren’t.

I agree with you that the Tiberian system is not perfect and is clearly wrong on some things. But given that, that does not mean it cannot be used as a starting point.

I have repeated said that if we want to communicate, we’ll need to use modern pronunciation.

Karl W. Randolphl.