kwrandolph wrote:“Tiberian” is the name of the Hebrew dialect that was spoken around medieval Tiberius when the Masoretes pointed the Tanakh. It was the Tiberian pronunciations that they preserved by their points which reflected also their understanding of the text. Their understanding of the text was also influenced by the Tiberian dialect, so they pointed it according to the grammar of the Tiberian dialect.
Thanks for the information about what is "Tiberian" - It was really needed.
But I don't know how Dialect has to do with something.
There is also the Babylonian Masora with another dialect with a different type of pointing which has the same understanding.
The text was understood like that way before the Tiberian pointed the text.
So I don't know what you're saying. Examples would be nice.
kwrandolph wrote:Conjugation is the forms.
Maybe I am confused with the English terms.
Isn't conjugations are: Qal, Piel, Hiphil and so on?
If so, then qtl and yqtl are not about conjugations - it is about the internal forms of each conjugation.
and that is what we were talking about, weren't we?
kwrandolph wrote:Yes you did, by saying that the question is one of syntax and not grammar.
Karl, I said, "RELATED".
Am I wrong by saying that?
ויברא אלהים את האדם בצלמו
בצלם אלהים ברא אותו
Can you switch these verb-forms with each other or not?
Because the form is related to the syntax.
kwrandolph wrote:Yet you use the participle as a present tense verb in modern Israeli Hebrew. Why then do you call is “weird”?
Because it is weird that they taught you in a Biblical Hebrew course, that the participle is part of the verbal system.
Which, by the way, the Tiberian pointing of the participle is as the nouns' system of pointing and not as the verbs'. So you're blaming the Tiberian for nothing in this case.
What is even weirder is that until now you quoted me on the most insignificant stuff.
very interesting discussion.
And I don't even like the term "present" or not in this case.
The participle is a participle.
While the participle is written, you understand it according to its place.
As coming to describe its subject, and this description can be narrow or wide.
So once again, instead of playing ping-pong with each other, examples would be nice.
kwrandolph wrote:And your current views and reading. It would help if you knew a little more linguistics.
I'll try being better next time.
kwrandolph wrote:The third person masculine singular verb can be pointed as a Qatal Qal, Qatal Piel, or Qal participle. So in sentences where the context indicates that they’re describing present actions, how were they pointed? I haven’t done a study on such sentences, but a survey of such sentences in Tanakh would answer your question.
All I can do is wait for your study.
kwrandolph wrote:In the phrase אבנים שחקו מים both nouns are plural, and the verb is third person plural. There’s no indication that the object should be read first, then the verb, then the subject. So taking the rule that the subject comes first, we get the picture of stones breaking water up into tiny droplets. That’s exactly what happens when waves crash against a rocky shore, or when water in a fast-moving mountain stream slams against rocks. Water doesn’t grindstones. Water moving stones causes stones to grind each other. But stones cause splashing of water, breaking water up into small droplets. And that’s the simple reading of the phrase in Job 14:19.
1. Read the context and understand its point.
2. Water does erode/wear stones and rocks.
Karl, If you may, you already know that my linguistic knowledge is not as good as yours. Therefore, I need to see nice examples of the things you say. Just make it simple to me so I can understand. Thanks for your understanding.