Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
ducky
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by ducky »

Hello Karl,
kwrandolph wrote:“…be more respectful”? If you want that, shouldn’t that start with you? What gives you the right to demand that others treat you as a superior? What are your credentials?
I did try to be more respectful by editing my posts.
I didn't expect you to be first.
But never mind. we can stay that way.
kwrandolph wrote:By the way, I notice that you haven’t answered some of the questions I posed in previous messages. Are you avoiding them? Why?
If you read what I wrote, I said (twice) that I'm putting on hold all of the other subjects that were raised, until we finish that one.
When we'll finish that one. I assure you I'll go back and refer to all of the subjects in this thread. Because it spreads too much to the sides, and I want to focus on one subject at a time.



Karl, I started to comment about your comments, but I decided to put that on hold too and deleted what I wrote.
I will go back to them later, as I would do with the other stuff in this thread.
I decided to do that because your comments are once again going round and round without really touching the point (except for one). But I Will address them later.

I feel that we're going nowhere.

The main subject (which started this thing) was the fact that I claim that you cannot read Biblical Hebrew and you say that you can.

I want to dwell on that and not stray to other conversations that are spread like branches from a tree.

So all I want to ask you right now is:
If I would put here a text - that writes in Biblical Hebrew, which each word is used also in the Bible, and you can find it in your lexicon in the exact same form.
And also, not a hard text.
Would you translate it to English?
Even if you translate just parts of it - that would be fine too.
All I want to see is how you can take a sentence and understand its syntax and grammar.

If you say Yes - then we can see what you're talking about, and surely I would see you in a better light.
If you say No - then I will go back and refer to all of the other subjects in this thread without quoting you with your name. I would just say my piece and finish this thread.
David Hunter
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by Isaac Fried »

Ducky writes
I feel that we're going nowhere.
Good, nowhere is a good place to be.
You work hard hitting the nail on its head, keep at it. We are listening.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by kwrandolph »

ducky wrote:Hello Karl,
kwrandolph wrote:“…be more respectful”? If you want that, shouldn’t that start with you? What gives you the right to demand that others treat you as a superior? What are your credentials?
I did try to be more respectful by editing my posts.
I didn't expect you to be first.
But never mind. we can stay that way.
See below.
ducky wrote:I feel that we're going nowhere.

The main subject (which started this thing) was the fact that I claim that you cannot read Biblical Hebrew and you say that you can.…

So all I want to ask you right now is:
If I would put here a text - that writes in Biblical Hebrew, which each word is used also in the Bible, and you can find it in your lexicon in the exact same form.
And also, not a hard text.
Would you translate it to English?
Even if you translate just parts of it - that would be fine too.
All I want to see is how you can take a sentence and understand its syntax and grammar.
So you think you can just waltz right in here, showing no evidence that you know what you’re talking about, then order others around as if they are little children, expecting them to jump at your command and this is showing respect?

Do you realize that not only is your demand demeaning, but that you have shown no indication that you know Biblical Hebrew? Do you realize that when you claimed that the grammars of modern Israeli Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew are the same, that that is evidence that you don’t know what you’re talking about? And that is just one of the indications that you don’t know Biblical Hebrew?

I’m not going to grovel and play your game. I don’t need to prove myself to you. Instead it’s you who needs to prove yourself to me. So far you have failed. Do you realize that the reason that I have answered you the way I have, is because of your disrespect of me? And secondly because you haven’t shown that you know what you’re talking about?
ducky wrote:If you say Yes - then we can see what you're talking about, and surely I would see you in a better light.
If you say No - then I will go back and refer to all of the other subjects in this thread without quoting you with your name. I would just say my piece and finish this thread.
There are already three people on this forum that when I see their names, that I don’t read their messages, and when they start threads, that I don’t read their threads, because I don’t want to waste my time; should I add “Ducky” to that list, to make it four?

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

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote:All we have is a pronunciation schema that dates from over a thousand years after the last native speaker of Biblical Hebrew died.
I don't think that the situation is as dire as this. I cannot imagine how you read Hebrew while rejecting the vowel system completely. I really do wish that I could hear how you read the Bible. I know that I've asked twice for you to record some partial reading of the text, but you haven't answered my request. Is there any way to hear how you read Hebrew while rejecting the vowel system completely?
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: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote:Do you realize that when you claimed that the grammars of modern Israeli Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew are the same, that that is evidence that you don’t know what you’re talking about? And that is just one of the indications that you don’t know Biblical Hebrew?
I first learned biblical Hebrew, using Seow's grammar. I went from there to reading and translating the Bible, to memorizing prayers from the Jewish prayer book (siddur) and later to learning to speak and express my thoughts in modern Hebrew. I didn't have to learn new grammar when I learned modern Hebrew. All of the requisite grammar was covered in biblical Hebrew. I had to learn a different (more explicit) syntax and to expand (and shade) my vocabulary.

As a speaker of modern Hebrew who came to it later in life, I can testify that the grammar is indeed the same. The difference is syntax and orthography (such as including י and ו in unaccented closed syllables, which is a no-no according to Masoretic vocalization but was being done already in the Dead Sea Scrolls).

In my experience, the only people who claim that biblical and modern Hebrew are so widely divergent are those who don't know both languages. Someone who doesn't know modern Hebrew but reads the Bible thinks that the languages are difference because of inexperience with the modern tongue; someone who speaks modern Hebrew but cannot read the Bible simply doesn't exert himself.

The poetic portions of the Bible present challenges for modern speakers, but narrative is very easy to read if you recognize the use of vav-consecutives, infinitive constructs (which are sometimes employed in modern speech) and infinitive absolutes (which really have no place in the modern language). This is syntax rather than grammar.

Thus, בקומך is easily transferred into the modern tongue as כשאתה קם. All of the pieces of the latter (כשאתה קם) are available in biblical Hebrew, but the syntax is altered in modern Hebrew so that בקומך sounds antiquated, though it is technically still correct. קם is used as a present participle in the biblical tongue, כש־ is an abbreviation of כאשר that appears in the Bible, and אתה is obviously the 2ms personal pronoun. All of the pieces exist as part of the lexicon and grammar of biblical Hebrew, but the way that they are put together (the syntax) is different.

Biblical and modern Hebrew are the same language, with varying expression (whether this is through syntactic relation or through an expanded lexicon). In my experience, anyone who speaks Hebrew and spends time reading the Bible agrees with this.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:All we have is a pronunciation schema that dates from over a thousand years after the last native speaker of Biblical Hebrew died.
I don't think that the situation is as dire as this. I cannot imagine how you read Hebrew while rejecting the vowel system completely. I really do wish that I could hear how you read the Bible. I know that I've asked twice for you to record some partial reading of the text, but you haven't answered my request. Is there any way to hear how you read Hebrew while rejecting the vowel system completely?
I’ll repeat what I wrote earlier—at one time I tried to read Tanakh exactly according to the Masoretic points. I memorized whole chapters using the Masoretic pronunciations. The result of that is that when I read Tanakh without points, I still hear the Masoretic pronunciations in my mind. When I see a verb that the context indicates is an imperative, I hear in my mind the Masoretic pronunciation of an imperative, and so forth. Because the Masoretic pronunciation schema is the only one in wide use, I continue to use those pronunciations, or pretty close to it.

The difference between me and others is that I recognize that my pronunciation is not Biblical. So that if Elijah were to return tomorrow, that he most likely wouldn’t understand a word I say, nor anyone else for that matter, unless God gives him a miraculous gift to understand us.

The reason I haven’t made a recording, is because my pronunciation would be almost identical to what you have learned. The main differences are where I disagree with the meanings that the Masoretes indicate with their points, not the pronunciation schema itself.

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

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote:I’ll repeat what I wrote earlier—at one time I tried to read Tanakh exactly according to the Masoretic points. I memorized whole chapters using the Masoretic pronunciations. The result of that is that when I read Tanakh without points, I still hear the Masoretic pronunciations in my mind. When I see a verb that the context indicates is an imperative, I hear in my mind the Masoretic pronunciation of an imperative, and so forth. Because the Masoretic pronunciation schema is the only one in wide use, I continue to use those pronunciations, or pretty close to it.

The difference between me and others is that I recognize that my pronunciation is not Biblical. So that if Elijah were to return tomorrow, that he most likely wouldn’t understand a word I say, nor anyone else for that matter, unless God gives him a miraculous gift to understand us.

The reason I haven’t made a recording, is because my pronunciation would be almost identical to what you have learned. The main differences are where I disagree with the meanings that the Masoretes indicate with their points, not the pronunciation schema itself.

Karl W. Randolph.
וְעַתָּה אֶת־יְדִידִי הֵבַ֫נְתִּי׃
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
ducky
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by ducky »

ducky wrote:I'm asking you... the word ססתי (my female horse), you call it biblical, right?
Silly question. If it’s found in the Bible, what else is it?
ducky wrote:what happens if you see a sentence (that you consider it Biblical) but it has the word ססתך (your female horse)?
Do you consider this sentence using Biblical Hebrew or not?
How can it be Biblical if it’s using vocabulary not found in the Bible? And that’s just dealing with vocabulary
How do we define Biblical Hebrew?
Is it only the exact words that are found in the Bible?
or is it the language, as a system, that the Hebrews spoke in the Biblical era?

I asked about the word סוסתך (you female horse).
Is it reasonable to say that סוסתי (my female horse) is a Biblical word but סוסתך and סוסתו and סוסתם are not?
It is the same word with another suffix.

Or another example: is root פקח in Conjugation Hiphil is Biblical Hebrew or not?
It is not found in the Bible. But it is found in a first temple Script that was found:
הפקח נא את אזן עבדך
So is it or is it not?
Is this script fake? after all, this form is "not-Biblical", (or maybe it actually is?).
So how would we define Biblical Hebrew?

There can be more possible different cases, and basically, the definition of Biblical Hebrew can be more than one, according to our intention for the subject that is talked about.

When we're talking about natural reading. the definition should be wide.
As long as the root is Biblical, and the form is biblical, there is no problem to read it even if the word is not the exact word that is found in the Bible.
Because Biblical Hebrew is not the exact Hebrew words that are written in the 24 books.
But it is a language, A system, that is used in the 24 books.

And so, when we know the "system" - anything can be read.
And it doesn't matter if the text is not in the level that can pass the test of the scholars for authentic claimed scripts.
The man who can understand the Biblical Hebrew can understand any text that is written even if it has problems.
For example, the man who knows to read Biblical Hebrew would know how to read the Jehoash script even though this script was claimed fake from its linguistic side.

And if a man cannot understand fake scripts, then the problem is not because of the tiny problematic things, but it is because he cannot read the system of the language naturally.
David Hunter
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Do you realize that when you claimed that the grammars of modern Israeli Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew are the same, that that is evidence that you don’t know what you’re talking about? And that is just one of the indications that you don’t know Biblical Hebrew?
I first learned biblical Hebrew, using Seow's grammar.
Dear Jason:

This takes a more involved answer than my previous one.

When I studied Biblical Hebrew, or what was then called “Biblical Hebrew”, the majority belief was that Tiberian Hebrew = Biblical Hebrew. Tiberian Hebrew is the ancestor to modern Israeli Hebrew and the grammars of the two are virtually identical. The biggest difference between Tiberian / modern Israeli Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew is the grammatical treatment of verbs.

There is disagreement between scholars as to what constitutes Biblical Hebrew. We had one poster on this list years ago who claimed that without the Masoretic points, one does not have Biblical Hebrew. Most scholars don’t go that far.

In Tiberian Hebrew, the verbal conjugations code for tense: Qatal is past tense, Yiqtol future tense and participle present tense. According to Waltke and O’Connor, that treatment of verbs was already practiced in the non-Biblical writings among the DSS. That’s how verbs were used in Mishnaic Hebrew. I’ve been told that that’s the practice in modern, Israeli Hebrew. There are still professors who teach that the grammatical use of verbs is the same in both Tiberian and Biblical Hebrew. I don’t know about Seow, is he one of those?

Even as I studied Hebrew, there were researchers who claimed that Biblical Hebrew conjugations did not code for tense. A later example is Dr. Rolf Furuli, who in his PhD dissertation shows that the conjugations don’t code for tense in Biblical Hebrew. For example, the majority of spoken sentences recorded in the narrative books where the person mentions something he is doing even as he speaks, the majority of such sentences consist of a subject, usually a pronoun, verb in Qatal, then object. I tried reading Tanakh consistently using the Tiberian verbal schema, and I couldn’t.

The early people who questioned if Tiberian Hebrew is the same as Biblical Hebrew, proposed that the conjugations code for aspect. The definition for aspect that they used is the same as what I learned when I studied linguistics and is found on the SIL site in their grammar reference section. This is where we get the perfect/imperfect, perfective/imperfective references to Qatal/Yiqtol. But that doesn’t work either, so rather than giving up on claiming that the conjugations code for aspect, they now redefine “aspect” is ways that I don’t recognize.

A good example of a passage that fits neither tense nor aspect, is Proverbs 31:10–31 where all the verbs, a mixture of Qatals and Yiqtols all refer to present, continuous action.

Another option is that the verbal conjugations are modal, but that the moods are not all the same as in English. This understanding was apparently first proposed by Dr. Diethelm Michel at Mainz University, though I came to a similar conclusion independent of him. I have yet to read anything by Dr. Michel, but another visiter to this site claims that it’s basically the same.
Jason Hare wrote:In my experience, the only people who claim that biblical and modern Hebrew are so widely divergent are those who don't know both languages.
Seeing as I originally learned Tiberian Hebrew, which is the ancestor of modern Israeli Hebrew, I should have some understanding of at least the grammar of modern Hebrew. It is on that basis that I say that they are quite different.
Jason Hare wrote:… but narrative is very easy to read if you recognize the use of vav-consecutives, infinitive constructs (which are sometimes employed in modern speech) and infinitive absolutes (which really have no place in the modern language). This is syntax rather than grammar.
These features are grammar, especially the so-called “waw-consecutives”. Some of the other features exist only as Masoretic points and would not be recognized apart from those points.

The waw-consecutive, for example, is based on a misunderstanding of Biblical Hebrew grammar. The Yiqtol, when used in the indicative mood, refers to a continuing or addition to the main idea, usually but not always preceded by a waw. In narration, it’s used to pull the narration along — this happened then that happened and t’other thing happened — and so forth.
Jason Hare wrote:Thus, בקומך is easily transferred into the modern tongue as כשאתה קם. All of the pieces of the latter (כשאתה קם) are available in biblical Hebrew, but the syntax is altered in modern Hebrew so that בקומך sounds antiquated, though it is technically still correct. קם is used as a present participle in the biblical tongue, כש־ is an abbreviation of כאשר that appears in the Bible, and אתה is obviously the 2ms personal pronoun. All of the pieces exist as part of the lexicon and grammar of biblical Hebrew, but the way that they are put together (the syntax) is different.
If I tried to read modern Israeli Hebrew and saw this example, I would have no idea what it meant. בקומך is a noun, meaning “in your rising up” a description of an action which could have happened in the past, is presently going on, or will happen in the future. From your description, the modern phrase has a different meaning.

The participle in Biblical Hebrew is used for events that have happened in the past, as well as events that will happen in the future. In modern Israeli Hebrew it is used as a present tense verb, as a sign of the present and only the present. That alone is a significant grammatical difference.
Jason Hare wrote:Biblical and modern Hebrew are the same language, with varying expression (whether this is through syntactic relation or through an expanded lexicon). In my experience, anyone who speaks Hebrew and spends time reading the Bible agrees with this.
Seeing as I was trained in the ancestor of modern Hebrew, and ended up having to reject what I was taught because of reading the Bible, would I be an exception to what you just wrote?

Karl W. Randolph.
ducky
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Is this a defective feminine plural, or what?

Post by ducky »

kwrandolph wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:Do you realize that when you claimed that the grammars of modern Israeli Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew are the same, that that is evidence that you don’t know what you’re talking about? And that is just one of the indications that you don’t know Biblical Hebrew?
I first learned biblical Hebrew, using Seow's grammar.
Dear Jason:

This takes a more involved answer than my previous one.

When I studied Biblical Hebrew, or what was then called “Biblical Hebrew”, the majority belief was that Tiberian Hebrew = Biblical Hebrew. Tiberian Hebrew is the ancestor to modern Israeli Hebrew and the grammars of the two are virtually identical. The biggest difference between Tiberian / modern Israeli Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew is the grammatical treatment of verbs.

There is disagreement between scholars as to what constitutes Biblical Hebrew. We had one poster on this list years ago who claimed that without the Masoretic points, one does not have Biblical Hebrew. Most scholars don’t go that far.

In Tiberian Hebrew, the verbal conjugations code for tense: Qatal is past tense, Yiqtol future tense and participle present tense. According to Waltke and O’Connor, that treatment of verbs was already practiced in the non-Biblical writings among the DSS. That’s how verbs were used in Mishnaic Hebrew. I’ve been told that that’s the practice in modern, Israeli Hebrew. There are still professors who teach that the grammatical use of verbs is the same in both Tiberian and Biblical Hebrew. I don’t know about Seow, is he one of those?

Even as I studied Hebrew, there were researchers who claimed that Biblical Hebrew conjugations did not code for tense. A later example is Dr. Rolf Furuli, who in his Ph.D. dissertation shows that the conjugations don’t code for tense in Biblical Hebrew. For example, the majority of spoken sentences recorded in the narrative books where the person mentions something he is doing even as he speaks, the majority of such sentences consist of a subject, usually a pronoun, verb in Qatal, then object. I tried reading Tanakh consistently using the Tiberian verbal schema, and I couldn’t.

The early people who questioned if Tiberian Hebrew is the same as Biblical Hebrew, proposed that the conjugations code for aspect. The definition of aspect that they used is the same as what I learned when I studied linguistics and is found on the SIL site in their grammar reference section. This is where we get the perfect/imperfect, perfective/imperfective references to Qatal/Yiqtol. But that doesn’t work either, so rather than giving up on claiming that the conjugations code for aspect, they now redefine “aspect” is ways that I don’t recognize.

A good example of a passage that fits neither tense nor aspect is Proverbs 31:10–31 where all the verbs, a mixture of Qatals and Yiqtols all refer to present, continuous action.

Another option is that the verbal conjugations are modal, but that the moods are not all the same as in English. This understanding was apparently first proposed by Dr. Diethelm Michel at Mainz University, though I came to a similar conclusion independent of him. I have yet to read anything by Dr. Michel, but another visitor to this site claims that it’s basically the same.
Jason Hare wrote:In my experience, the only people who claim that biblical and modern Hebrew is so widely divergent are those who don't know both languages.
Seeing as I originally learned Tiberian Hebrew, which is the ancestor of modern Israeli Hebrew, I should have some understanding of at least the grammar of modern Hebrew. It is on that basis that I say that they are quite different.
Jason Hare wrote:… but the narrative is very easy to read if you recognize the use of vav-consecutive, infinitive constructs (which are sometimes employed in modern speech) and infinitive absolutes (which really have no place in the modern language). This is syntax rather than grammar.
These features are grammar, especially the so-called “waw-consecutive”. Some of the other features exist only as Masoretic points and would not be recognized apart from those points.

The waw-consecutive, for example, is based on a misunderstanding of Biblical Hebrew grammar. The Yiqtol, when used in the indicative mood, refers to a continuing or addition to the main idea, usually but not always preceded by a waw. In narration, it’s used to pull the narration along — this happened then that happened and t’ other thing happened — and so forth.
Jason Hare wrote:Thus, בקומך is easily transferred into the modern tongue as כשאתה קם. All of the pieces of the latter (כשאתה קם) are available in biblical Hebrew, but the syntax is altered in modern Hebrew so that בקומך sounds antiquated, though it is technically still correct. קם is used as a present participle in the biblical tongue, כש־ is an abbreviation of כאשר that appears in the Bible, and אתה is obviously the 2ms personal pronoun. All of the pieces exist as part of the lexicon and grammar of biblical Hebrew, but the way that they are put together (the syntax) is different.
If I tried to read modern Israeli Hebrew and saw this example, I would have no idea what it meant. בקומך is a noun, meaning “in your rising up” a description of an action which could have happened in the past, is presently going on, or will happen in the future. From your description, the modern phrase has a different meaning.

The participle in Biblical Hebrew is used for events that have happened in the past, as well as events that will happen in the future. In modern Israeli Hebrew, it is used as a present tense verb, as a sign of the present and only the present. That alone is a significant grammatical difference.
Jason Hare wrote:Biblical and modern Hebrew are the same language, with varying expression (whether this is through syntactic relation or through an expanded lexicon). In my experience, anyone who speaks Hebrew and spends time reading the Bible agrees with this.
Seeing as I was trained in the ancestor of modern Hebrew, and ended up having to reject what I was taught because of reading the Bible, would I be an exception to what you just wrote?

Karl W. Randolph.
Everything that you wrote doesn't contradict anything that was said here.
The Biblical verbs, Tiberian or not, are not about tense.
and you gave the examples yourself.

The choice of the Biblical syntax between yqtl and qtl is about the syntax.
(there are specific rules).

Also, there is a reason for the prefix "w" pointing. which is about original short forms and long forms (that looks the same in most of the roots) and that affected the W to lose it vowel and turn to a Mobile Sheva.

And by the way, any modern Speaker understands this "Prefix W" and you can talk to a person like that. It would be funny, but he will understand you clearly.

It is true, that the Mishnaic syntax started to use clear tenses (and probably that happened way before the Mishnaic time) and Modern Hebrew prefers the simple way (like anyone would).

When you translate בקומך to "in your rising up" it is a very literal translation, and so it has no place for understanding the meaning.
Have you ever said to someone: "in you rising up, call me!"

the participle is not exactly as you said, and it has more usages in Biblical Hebrew, Some of them are really "touches" Present tense.

(I don't know if you're still mad or not, but I'm not)
David Hunter
Post Reply