qal passive particple vs niphal participle

[SteveMiller]

Is there a difference in meaning between the Qal passive participle and the Niphal participle?
thanks.

[ducky]

Hi Steve,

Basically (or originally), the Niphal has a reflexive meaning, But in time, it came to replace the passive Qal. So if it has the passive meaning, I think it has the same meaning that the Passive Qal gives it.

[Jason Hare]

Is there a difference in meaning between the Qal passive participle and the Niphal participle?
thanks.

To add my agreement to David's statement above:

There is no difference in meaning. For example, the burning bush not being devoured appears as וְהַסְּנֶה אֵינֶ֫נּוּ אֻכָּל, but it could have just as easily appeared as וְהַסְּנֶה אֵינֶ֫נּוּ נֶאֱכָל. The niphal had simply taken the place of the qal passive in nearly all situations as the latter disappeared from general use in the language. We see only remnants of it in the text of the Tanach.

[kwrandolph]

What makes you think that the verb אכל in that verse is a participle? Why not a third person masculine singular pual qatal? That fits both the context and the consonantal text, so why not?

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

For a few reasons.

The first one is that the negative word of the word אכל is איננו.
the negative word אין negates nouns and participles, but not verbs.
Therefore, the word אכל cannot be "qatal" (of any Binyan), since after the איננו comes a participle.

****
Another reason is checking the word itself.
Usually, when we suspect a passive form, we try to find its active (or another form in that Binyan).
But there is no Piel for that root at all.
So if there is no Piel, why do we need to see it as "Pual"?

So No Piel, and also no Hitpael (both D stems).
But there are "simple" stems such as Qal, Hiphil, Niphal.

I know that you don't follow the vowels, and so you can say that there might be many "pile" forms but they are voweled as Qal.
So here, I should ask you to find a sure-Piel form.
For example, a participle - like מאכל (piel/pual)
But there is no such form at all, which this form is surely Piel/Pual)
But there are many participles of Qal.

****
Another reason is by seeing the reference of the word to the fire.
this comes often, and it is always a Qal form of אכל that talks about the burning fire.
So it is a very common pattern to see a Qal of אכל with this meaning.
And here, it is another Qal.

[kwrandolph]

The first one is that the negative word of the word אכל is איננו.
the negative word אין negates nouns and participles, but not verbs.

The very first time אין is used in Tanakh, it is used with an infinitive verb, Genesis 2:5. The same is true for Numbers 20:5, 1 Samuel 9:7, and probably more.

There are other times that it is used with what can be read as either a third person qatal verb, or a participle, e.g. Exodus 5:16, Leviticus 13:32. But you’d probably argue that those are participles because of your theory.

Also אין comes before pronouns and adjectives. Not counting the times it stands alone.

Usually, when we suspect a passive form, we try to find its active (or another form in that Binyan).
But there is no Piel for that root at all.
So if there is no Piel, why do we need to see it as "Pual"?

That argument also doesn’t hold water. We don’t need to have a Piel in order to have the possibility of a Pual. In Biblical Hebrew, the Binyanim had grammatical functions, unlike medieval to modern Hebrew. You don’t know if it was never used as a Pual, or Piel for that matter. Secondly you can’t rule out happax uses.

I know that you don't follow the vowels, and so you can say that there might be many "pile" forms but they are voweled as Qal.

And how many Qals were pointed as Piels, and other possibilities?

We can’t trust any of the points because:
1) they were written down over a thousand years after the last native speaker of Biblical Hebrew had died
2) they were based on a different grammar than what Tanakh was written in.

So here, I should ask you to find a sure-Piel form.
For example, a participle - like מאכל (piel/pual)

How many examples do you want? How do you know that the over 30 examples of מאכל doesn’t contain at least one that is a Piel or Pual? In Biblical Hebrew, participles were nouns, not verbs, and the מאכל form is based on the Piel or Pual binyan.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

The very first-time אין is used in Tanakh, it is used with an infinitive verb, Genesis 2:5. The same is true for Numbers 20:5, 1 Samuel 9:7, and probably more.

I guess that you already understood that When I said "verb", I meant only "QTL/YQTL".
(I don't want to argue about the term "verb")

There are other times that it is used with what can be read as either a third-person qatal verb or a participle, e.g. Exodus 5:16, Leviticus 13:32. But you’d probably argue that those are participles because of your theory.

In Levi (in all of the relevant verses), it talks about the appearance (not the mark), so it is an adjective.

As for Ex.
Theoretically, you can indeed also read it as QTL and the meaning would be basically the same.
But that would be just a coincidence.

The fact that in that case, the participle in that verse can also be read/understood as "past", doesn't mean it is not really a participle (and represent the general situation).

There are hundreds of אין in the bible, and it is seen clearly that they don't negate QTL/YQTL.
(from hundreds of cases it cannot be missed).

If you want to claim otherwise, then you must find at least a few clear cases of negations of QTL/YQTL, or to show a pattern.
(but I don't think you can do that)

And if you point to this verse of Ex. which a simple participle fits the meaning and also fits the common pattern of the negation word, then why try to see it as QTL which doesn't fit the known pattern?

Usually, when we suspect a passive form, we try to find its active (or another form in that Binyan).
But there is no Piel for that root at all.
So if there is no Piel, why do we need to see it as "Pual"?

That argument also doesn’t hold water. We don’t need to have a Piel in order to have the possibility of a Pual. In Biblical Hebrew, the Binyanim had grammatical functions, unlike medieval to modern Hebrew. You don’t know if it was never used as a Pual, or Piel for that matter. Secondly, you can’t rule out hapax uses.

You reject this argument, but I didn't use it as an argument. If you read again what I wrote, I said that when someone wants to prove some form, one of the tools that he has is to find a form in the same "family" (Just as a way to support his claim).
So I wanted to say, that you, in this case, don't have this tool because there is no Piel and not even Hitpael (D stems).
And if there were some, then you could easily point at it.
I don't say that if there isn't Piel, so there mustn't be Pual.
All I'm saying is that it is weird that in this very common root אכל, we cannot find any D stem.
And if we can't, why do we need to assume there is an hapax D stem, instead of just seeing it in a simple way, as a passive Qal? - Which we know that the Qal of אכל is linked to "fire" many times already.
I mean - it is not strange to see it as Qal (I don't know why you even reject that)

And how many Qals were pointed as Piels, and other possibilities?

We can’t trust any of the points because:
1) they were written down over a thousand years after the last native speaker of Biblical Hebrew had died
2) they were based on a different grammar than what Tanakh was written in.

This is another discussion, and I know your view already, and that is why I wanted to focus on the Piel/Pual participles.
Because their participles cannot be "miss-voweled" as Qal.

And still, I don't see any participle of a D stem for that root.
So isn't that a question for you to ask?

So here, I should ask you to find a sure-Piel form.
For example, a participle - like מאכל (Piel/Pual)

How many examples do you want? How do you know that the over 30 examples of מאכל don’t contain at least one that is a Piel or Pual? In Biblical Hebrew, participles were nouns, not verbs, and the מאכל form is based on the Piel or Pual binyan.

Can you give one or two examples of where מאכל comes as a Piel/Pual?

*************************************************

I don't really understand why you reject it as a passive Qal.
Even if there was a Piel/Pual for that root אכל - I would still see this איננו אכל as a passive Qal.

Do you see All forms of "quttal" as Pual?

Do you accept (or not) that there is a passive Qal in the form of "quttal"?

*****

[Jason Hare]

I just read through chapter 3 of Genesis with some students. Notice the forms לֻקָּ֫חְתָּ (kamats in pause) and לֻקַּח from that chapter, which are both qal passives. They would be just as clearly understood if they had been written in the niphal as נִלְקָ֫חְתָּ (kamats in pause) and נִלְקַח, respectively meaning "you were taken" and "he was taken." The niphal eventually subsumed the qal passive, but it appears in passages like these. There is certainly no piel form of this root (לִקֵּחַ*).

Of this root, see HALOT regarding the "pual" (which it labels as "passive qal") in the attached image.

[Jason Hare]

By chance today I came across Ps 139.15 while looking at other things. It has two more instances of the qal passive (with the words עשה and רקם, neither of which have a piel form). Here's the verse from the BHS, with a few suggestions for reading the text otherwise based on the Septuagint (𝔊) and the Syriac (𝔖):

לֹא־נִכְחַ֥ד עָצְמִ֗י מִ֫מֶּ֥ךָּ אֲשֶׁרᵃ‬־עֻשֵּׂ֥יתִיᵇ‬ בַסֵּ֑תֶר רֻ֝קַּ֗מְתִּיᶜ‬ בְּֽתַחְתִּיֹּ֥ות אָֽרֶץ׃
 15 ᵃ prp כַּא׳‎ (כ hpgr) || ᵇ 𝔊(𝔖) ἐποίησας = עָשִׂיתָ || ᶜ 𝔊 καὶ ἡ ὑπόστασίς μου = וְקֹמָתִי?

As pointed, עֻשֵּׂיתִי would be qal passive, "I was made," as would רֻקַּמְתִּי "I was formed."

[kwrandolph]

There is certainly no piel form of this root (לִקֵּחַ*).

And what makes you think that there were no peil forms of the root לקח? Oh yes, the Masoretic points,. What makes you think that they were correct? After all, there’s no question that their points don’t reflect Biblical era pronunciations. Nor do they reflect Biblical era grammar. So why should anyone assume that their points are correct‏?

In the consonantal text, for the Qatal verbs, the spellings of the Qal, Piel and Pual are identical. For the Yiqtol verbs, add the Hophal. During the Biblical era, readers had to use contextual clues to recognize which binyan was meant for each verb read. That recognition requires that the binyanim were grammatically functional and could be applied to any verb. Further that the function can be recognized from the context.

In the examples given, besides passive, which functional clues are there that would make one conclude passive Qal or Pual?

I throw this out as a discussion, not that I have made a final conclusion.

Karl W. Randolph.