Qal Participle ending with a yod?

[ducky]

I'll just add something about it, even though I wanted to ignore it.
Modern Hebrew is closer to Biblical Hebrew more than Modern English to 500 years ago English.

Another thing about the Tiberian...
Karl, without saying something wrong about your general knowledge...
I don't think you understand the meaning of Tiberian Hebrew (which is a dialect), and the act of Masora.
Even though the famous Masoretes were Tiberian, it doesn't mean anything.
The participle would be pointed as a participle also according to the Babylonian Masoretes.

****
In general, if you want to point about miss-pointing in the Masoretic text, (whether as a system or by mistake, or more), no problem.
There is always a place for that.
But it seems that you are using a lot of term with while adding a lot of general explanations, and it just doesn't say anything.

[kwrandolph]

I'll just add something about it, even though I wanted to ignore it.
Modern Hebrew is closer to Biblical Hebrew more than Modern English to 500 years ago English.

That is debatable. Even though I can read Tanakh well, when I open an Israeli Hebrew newspaper, I find I can understand almost nothing. That is in spite of the fact that I usually read Hebrew without points.

I find it easier to read Yiddisch.

Another thing about the Tiberian...
Karl, without saying something wrong about your general knowledge...
I don't think you understand the meaning of Tiberian Hebrew (which is a dialect), and the act of Masora.
Even though the famous Masoretes were Tiberian, it doesn't mean anything.
The participle would be pointed as a participle also according to the Babylonian Masoretes.

I already covered that in mentioning that DSS Hebrew had already changed from Biblical Hebrew. Both the languages of the Babylonian Masoretes and the Tiberian Masoretes followed the same rules.

In general, if you want to point about miss-pointing in the Masoretic text, (whether as a system or by mistake, or more), no problem.
There is always a place for that.
But it seems that you are using a lot of term with while adding a lot of general explanations, and it just doesn't say anything.

What I say is that there’s a pattern that was caused by the change in grammar.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

I'll just add something about it, even though I wanted to ignore it.
Modern Hebrew is closer to Biblical Hebrew more than Modern English to 500 years ago English.

That is debatable. Even though I can read Tanakh well, when I open an Israeli Hebrew newspaper, I find I can understand almost nothing. That is in spite of the fact that I usually read Hebrew without points.

If it is debatable, so let's make it a 1,000 years ago, so we can be sure.
I saw this on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lXv3Tt4x20
It is interesting to know when the time is that it's becoming difficult to understand.

Modern Hebrew is simpler than Biblical Hebrew (which is a literary/poetic and so on).
If you understand the rules of Biblical Hebrew, then Modern Hebrew would be understood as well.
(Of course, with little adjustments to here and there).
[/quote]

I find it easier to read Yiddisch.

If so, you must be German, because Yiddisch is just an old German dialect with Hebrew motives.

I already covered that in mentioning that DSS Hebrew had already changed from Biblical Hebrew. Both the languages of the Babylonian Masoretes and the Tiberian Masoretes followed the same rules.

......

What I say is that there’s a pattern that was caused by the change in grammar.

That's the point. If you want to criticize the pointing, then just do.

[kwrandolph]

I'll just add something about it, even though I wanted to ignore it.
Modern Hebrew is closer to Biblical Hebrew more than Modern English to 500 years ago English.

That is debatable. Even though I can read Tanakh well, when I open an Israeli Hebrew newspaper, I find I can understand almost nothing. That is in spite of the fact that I usually read Hebrew without points.

If it is debatable, so let's make it a 1,000 years ago, so we can be sure.

LOL! A thousand years ago was before the Norman conquest of England and the foisting of French language on Old English speaking England. Old English was a language similar to Old Norse.

Modern Hebrew is simpler than Biblical Hebrew (which is a literary/poetic and so on).

Modern Israeli Hebrew has a different grammar. Therefore the rules for understanding Biblical Hebrew are different from modern Israeli Hebrew. For example, the simple present action, indicative verb in Biblical Hebrew was written as a Qal Qatal form—modern Israeli Hebrew that is written as a participle. The Qal Qatal is past tense in modern Israeli Hebrew. Another difference is that there are words, I don’t know how many though I wouldn’t be surprised if they are in the hundreds, that have different meanings than were used in Tanakh.

If you understand the rules of Biblical Hebrew, then Modern Hebrew would be understood as well.
(Of course, with little adjustments to here and there).

Little adjustments? LOL! I don’t understand it at all. A word here and there, maybe a phrase, but not even a whole paragraph.

I find it easier to read Yiddisch.

If so, you must be German, because Yiddisch is just an old German dialect with Hebrew motives.

No, I’m American. But I lived in Germany, in a small farming village, only about 100 kilometers from where Rashi lived, where the dialect spoken was similar to where Rashi lived. Yiddisch is similar to that dialect.

I already covered that in mentioning that DSS Hebrew had already changed from Biblical Hebrew. Both the languages of the Babylonian Masoretes and the Tiberian Masoretes followed the same rules.

......

What I say is that there’s a pattern that was caused by the change in grammar.

That's the point. If you want to criticize the pointing, then just do.

That’s what I am doing. But when I criticize the pointing, that brings in a host of other issues, e.g. grammar changes.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi,

LOL! A thousand years ago was before the Norman conquest of England and the foisting of French language on Old English speaking England. Old English was a language similar to Old Norse.

I don't understand what is there to LOL about.
The fact that there are major differences between the Modern English to the Old English (or the Medium English) from a few centuries ago put in perspective your "complaints" about the differences between Modern Hebrew an ancient Hebrew that is way more than a few centuries ago.
That's all. Just to put things in perspective.

....

As to your failure to understand Modern Hebrew despite your knowledge on Biblical Hebrew... It is beyond me.
It is strange to understand how a person can put himself to study and learn Biblical Hebrew but fail to do the same with Modern Hebrew.
As I said, Modern Hebrew is a "simplified Hebrew" when it comes to syntax and grammar.
But what does it matter, let's leave it.

[kwrandolph]

Hi,

LOL! A thousand years ago was before the Norman conquest of England and the foisting of French language on Old English speaking England. Old English was a language similar to Old Norse.

I don't understand what is there to LOL about.

Sorry, you would know if you knew the history of the English language. You write English so well I assumed you knew.

The fact that there are major differences between the Modern English to the Old English (or the Medium English) from a few centuries ago put in perspective your "complaints" about the differences between Modern Hebrew an ancient Hebrew that is way more than a few centuries ago.
That's all. Just to put things in perspective.

And my message back is that there are greater changes than what you recognize.

....

As to your failure to understand Modern Hebrew despite your knowledge on Biblical Hebrew... It is beyond me.

And it is beyond me to understand why you don’t recognize the differences between modern Israeli Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew.

It is strange to understand how a person can put himself to study and learn Biblical Hebrew but fail to do the same with Modern Hebrew.

Why spend the time to learn modern, Israeli Hebrew when it is so different from Biblical Hebrew? Don’t you recognize that mastering modern Israeli Hebrew would make it more difficult to recognize nuances in Biblical Hebrew?

As I said, Modern Hebrew is a "simplified Hebrew" when it comes to syntax and grammar.

There you are wrong. The grammar is largely changed, and the syntax as well.

But what does it matter, let's leave it.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi,

Simplified Hebrew means "changed" - only to simple.
I don't know if you ever put yourself to learn Modern Hebrew, I guess not, and that is why you say you don't understand it.
I didn't say you should study - if it doesn't interest you, then you shouldn't.
I do recognize the differences between modern Israeli Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew - But I don't think that these differences should and would cause the reaction that you're having.

But anyway, I leave you with Neil Sedaka singing in Hebrew.
Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMjKBTIchUg

[kwrandolph]

Hi,

Simplified Hebrew means "changed" - only to simple.

I already gave examples where “changed” does not mean “simplified”.

I don't know if you ever put yourself to learn Modern Hebrew, I guess not, and that is why you say you don't understand it.

I never had the opportunity. However, I was introduced to some aspects of modern Israeli Hebrew, most notably the grammar, and learned how different it is from Biblical Hebrew.

I do recognize the differences between modern Israeli Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew - But I don't think that these differences should and would cause the reaction that you're having.

Do you recognize that the grammar for Biblical Hebrew deals mainly with modalities, whereas modern Israeli Hebrew is tense based?

But anyway, I leave you with Neil Sedaka singing in Hebrew.
Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMjKBTIchUg

Thanks for the song.

Karl W. Randolph.