Has anyone done a study of noun derivations from roots, and what they mean?
In English we have patterns to derive nouns from verbs, patterns that are so well established that a person can make neologisms using those patterns, and readers can understand what is meant. To give an example:
To create gives creator, creation, creative, creativity, etc.
In Biblical Hebrew I’ve noticed some patterns and some possible meanings:
• Qal participle: with the meanings of actor or the action (gerund). Is a participle ever used as a verb in Hebrew?
• Piel or Pual participle: a repeated or continuous action, a site where such a repeated action takes place.
• Shegolet noun: an object connected with the action.
• Feminine noun connected the the shegolet or Qal participle actor: feminine of a living creature; refers to a group or set of something; an abstract idea connected with the action.
• Feminine nouns ending with a waw-tau which the Masoretes pronounced as -ūth: any guesses as to that form’s meaning? Is this the feminine form of the masculine plural to indicate an abstract idea connected with a noun?
• Feminine singular nouns ending with a tau. What complicates matters with this ending is that in the plural, it has the same form as the plural of final heh feminine nouns: what differences does this form have from those feminine nouns that end with a heh? This appears to be an abstract connected with an idea rather than specific individuals, e.g. אבת to “fatherdom” or ancestors or the time of the ancestors, not specifically to individuals.
• plural nouns sometimes used to indicate status, e.g. נערים status of being a youth (when you were a youth), מותים status of being dead, זקנים status of being old, old age
• beginning with a ת
• beginning and ending with a ת
• ending with a ת but is masculine
Any ideas or corrections?
Karl W. Randolph
Noun derivations from roots—patterns
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
-
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm
Re: Noun derivations from roots—patterns
1 Sam 16:1, מִמְּלֹ֖ךְ עַל־ יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל, from reigning over Israel. (see Job 34:30)• Qal participle: with the meanings of actor or the action (gerund). Is a participle ever used as a verb in Hebrew?
2 Kings 11:3, וַעֲתַלְיָ֖ה מֹלֶ֥כֶת עַל־ הָאָֽרֶץ. This one has a final tav (compare Exodus 22:2, אִם־ בַּמַּחְתֶּ֛רֶת יִמָּצֵ֥א הַגַּנָּ֖ב<-- I think it's really a gerund here; if a thief is caught in the breaking in
1 Sam 25:10, רַבּ֣וּ עֲבָדִ֔ים הַמִּתְפָּ֣רְצִ֔ים, where the ha functions as a relative pronoun.
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
-
- Posts: 1536
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Noun derivations from roots—patterns
Don’t confuse artifact of translation with how it’s used within Biblical Hebrew.Jemoh66 wrote:1 Sam 16:1, מִמְּלֹ֖ךְ עַל־ יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל, from reigning over Israel. (see Job 34:30)• Qal participle: with the meanings of actor or the action (gerund). Is a participle ever used as a verb in Hebrew?
2 Kings 11:3, וַעֲתַלְיָ֖ה מֹלֶ֥כֶת עַל־ הָאָֽרֶץ. This one has a final tav (compare Exodus 22:2, אִם־ בַּמַּחְתֶּ֛רֶת יִמָּצֵ֥א הַגַּנָּ֖ב<-- I think it's really a gerund here; if a thief is caught in the breaking in
1 Sam 25:10, רַבּ֣וּ עֲבָדִ֔ים הַמִּתְפָּ֣רְצִ֔ים, where the ha functions as a relative pronoun.
Often a literal translation from one language to another results in gibberish in the second language (remember the early days of Google translate? It was a joke!). Therefore, a good translator changes things in order to make the idea come across more smoothly.
One of those changes is to take a gerund participle in Biblical Hebrew, which is a noun, and change it to a verb in English. Here a gerund, “person [verb]-ing”, is merely clunky in English, but still often makes a smoother read in English to change it to a verb. Your examples of 1 Samuel 16:1, 25:10 and 2 Kings 11:3 have the idea of the person doing the action (2 Kings 11:3 is a feminine participle).
Exodus 22:2 apparently is one of those nouns built from a participle, the final tau indicating status, in this case the status of doing an action.
Hence my question, is a participle ever used as a verb within Biblical Hebrew? I seriously question that.
Karl W. Randolph.
-
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm
Re: Noun derivations from roots—patterns
I don't see how what I have written suggests I am leaning on translation. In fact, I am translating based on the Hebrew to point out that these are not gerunds. That's all. I think you are confusing the matter here. I am pointing out participles that do not function as gerunds within the BH.kwrandolph wrote:
Don’t confuse artifact of translation with how it’s used within Biblical Hebrew.
Again my point here is not to offer a smooth translation. This is THE place for a literal translation since we are searching for participles that are functioning as verbs not gerunds. It's seems you're actually using translation to bolster your agenda that they are all gerunds.kwrandolph wrote:Often a literal translation from one language to another results in gibberish in the second language (remember the early days of Google translate? It was a joke!). Therefore, a good translator changes things in order to make the idea come across more smoothly.
No, the min prefix precludes it being a gerundkwrandolph wrote:Your examples of 1 Samuel 16:1, 25:10
kwrandolph wrote:and 2 Kings 11:3 have the idea of the person doing the action (2 Kings 11:3 is a feminine participle).
[/i]Exodus 22:2 apparently is one of those nouns built from a participle, the final tau indicating status, in this case the status of doing an action.
Yes I agree, I was thinking through my fingers, and that's why I called it a gerund, rather than eliminating it as an example. And that's why I translated it literally, if a thief is caught "in the breaking in". Again using literal translation as to not force English into what's happening in Hebrew.
more straight forward participle:kwrandolph wrote:Hence my question, is a participle ever used as a verb within Biblical Hebrew? I seriously question that.
as Present Continuous
1. 1 Chron 17:1 [right]וַיְהִ֕י כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר יָשַׁ֥ב דָּוִ֖יד בְּבֵיתֹ֑ו וַיֹּ֨אמֶר דָּוִ֜יד אֶל־ נָתָ֣ן הַנָּבִ֗יא הִנֵּ֨ה אָנֹכִ֤י יֹושֵׁב֙ בְּבֵ֣ית הָֽאֲרָזִ֔ים[/right]
as immediate future
2. Num 24:14 [right]וְעַתָּ֕ה הִנְנִ֥י הֹולֵ֖ךְ לְעַמִּ֑י לְכָה֙ אִיעָ֣צְךָ֔ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יַעֲשֶׂ֜ה הָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֛ה לְעַמְּךָ֖ בְּאַחֲרִ֥ית הַיָּמִֽים׃[/right]
3. Haggai 2:21 [right]אֲנִ֣י מַרְעִ֔ישׁ אֶת־ הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם[/right]
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
-
- Posts: 1536
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: Noun derivations from roots—patterns
Gerund is just one possibility that I mentioned. The other main option that I mentioned is the actor doing an action.Jemoh66 wrote:I don't see how what I have written suggests I am leaning on translation. In fact, I am translating based on the Hebrew to point out that these are not gerunds. That's all. I think you are confusing the matter here. I am pointing out participles that do not function as gerunds within the BH.kwrandolph wrote:
Don’t confuse artifact of translation with how it’s used within Biblical Hebrew.
Again, let me emphasize, I didn’t insist that gerund was the only possibility. The actor is the other main possibility.Jemoh66 wrote:Again my point here is not to offer a smooth translation. This is THE place for a literal translation since we are searching for participles that are functioning as verbs not gerunds. It's seems you're actually using translation to bolster your agenda that they are all gerunds.kwrandolph wrote:Often a literal translation from one language to another results in gibberish in the second language (remember the early days of Google translate? It was a joke!). Therefore, a good translator changes things in order to make the idea come across more smoothly.
1 Samuel 16:1 is a verbless clause in Hebrew. Read the whole sentence,Jemoh66 wrote:No, the min prefix precludes it being a gerundkwrandolph wrote:Your examples of 1 Samuel 16:1, 25:10
עד מתי אתה מתאבל אל שאול ואני מאסתיו ממלך על ישראל
the verb is מאסתיו where even the gerund “being” is an artifact of translation, as the clause is a verbless clause without a participle. Literally the sentence reads as, “…I reject him from a king over Israel” where in English inserting “being” before “a king”, is an artifact of translation, to make it easier to read.
1 Samuel 25:10 we have a hitpael participle, which starts with a mem. Here the participle refers to actors.
These two examples, are they verbs in Biblical Hebrew? Is not the smoothest way to translate them into English is as gerunds using a form of the verb “to be” followed by the gerund? In these two cases, as well as many like them, I see the participles as gerunds referring to the actions. I see the translations as verbs being artifacts of translation.Jemoh66 wrote:more straight forward participle:kwrandolph wrote:Hence my question, is a participle ever used as a verb within Biblical Hebrew? I seriously question that.
as Present Continuous
1. 1 Chron 17:1 [right]וַיְהִ֕י כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר יָשַׁ֥ב דָּוִ֖יד בְּבֵיתֹ֑ו וַיֹּ֨אמֶר דָּוִ֜יד אֶל־ נָתָ֣ן הַנָּבִ֗יא הִנֵּ֨ה אָנֹכִ֤י יֹושֵׁב֙ בְּבֵ֣ית הָֽאֲרָזִ֔ים[/right]
as immediate future
2. Num 24:14 [right]וְעַתָּ֕ה הִנְנִ֥י הֹולֵ֖ךְ לְעַמִּ֑י לְכָה֙ אִיעָ֣צְךָ֔ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יַעֲשֶׂ֜ה הָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֛ה לְעַמְּךָ֖ בְּאַחֲרִ֥ית הַיָּמִֽים׃[/right]
I read this verse with the participle referring to the actor. It seems to me actually to weaken the verse’ message to change it to a verb.Jemoh66 wrote:3. Haggai 2:21 [right]אֲנִ֣י מַרְעִ֔ישׁ אֶת־ הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם[/right]
This discussion shows what I’ve said in the past, namely that Biblical Hebrew is not that well known. We may have to agree to disagree, when neither of us has enough evidence to convince the other.
My present 2¢.
Karl W. Randolph.