Karl and Ken,kwrandolph wrote:Not necessarily.Kenneth Greifer wrote:Karl,
The quotes I gave you were all kal, right?
Jeremiah 14:4 appears to be a noun.
Isaiah 30:31 is Niphal.
Jeremiah 48:1 and 50:2 appear that they could be from a different root.
You mention Biblehub. I’ve never used it. Not having seen it, I wouldn’t be surprised but that the parsing that they list is according to the Masoretic points which are sometimes wrong.
Is there such a thing as Qal passive? Even when looking at lists of paradigms, it doesn’t exist except as a participle. As such, it can be an adjective rather than a verb.Kenneth Greifer wrote:But they were also passive, so are you saying the kal form can be active and passive? Or are you saying the ones I gave you were not kal passive?
Kenneth Greifer
This is interesting—what exactly is going on?
Karl W. Randolph.
Here's what Ross says in his introductory Grammar,
So actually the Qal passive theory is based on perceived weaknesses of the Masoretic pointing in those particular instances.Qal Passive: grammarians have observed that some biblical verbs vocalized by the Masoretes as Pual or Hophal forms may actually be Qal passives because (1) no alteration in the basic meaning of the root occurs that accords with a true Pual or Hophal, (2) the forms look like Pual in the perfect and Hophal in the imperfect, (3) ל in לָקַח assimilates as it does only in the Qal, and (4) the participle does not have prefix מ
Ross gives two examples: Psalm 139:15 (Qal עָשָׂה, to do, make ) and Gen 12:15. (Qal לָקַח, to take)