qal passive particple vs niphal participle

[Jason Hare]

So why should anyone assume that [the Masoretic] points are correct‏?

Must relentless skepticism (cynicism?) be the end of every conversation at the modern iteration of B-Hebrew? If you think that לקח has piel forms, prove it.

According to the Masoretic points, there is no piel of this root.
According to Gesenius, there is no piel of this root.
According to BDB, there is no piel of this root.
According to HALOT, there is no piel of this root.
According to Holladay, there is no piel of this root.
According to the Logos morphological tags, there is no piel of this root.

I've never seen any reason to read any instance of לקח as piel. There is no piel of this root in the modern language. According to Jastrow, there is no piel of this root in the rabbinic literature. You're going against the grain, and when you do such, you need to prove what you're saying. The onus probandi is on you.

You're the only one that I've ever heard of that would, on the basis of his rejection of (1) the Masoretic tradition and (2) the concept of the qal passive, actually make the claim that there is perhaps a piel of the root לקח. Your methodology is completely lost on me. It seems that you just throw out claims for the sake of undermining anything that you don't like.

This has gone beyond healthy skepticism. Again, if you are truly suggesting that לקח has a piel form (this can be demonstrated by a participle מלקח [for example]), then prove it. If you don't actually think that it has a piel form, then why use such a proposition to undermine the concept of a qal passive?

[kwrandolph]

So why should anyone assume that [the Masoretic] points are correct‏?

Must relentless skepticism (cynicism?) be the end of every conversation at the modern iteration of B-Hebrew? If you think that לקח has piel forms, prove it.

What sort of evidence would you accept? Do you have any idea of the function a Piel conjugation would impart to a verb? Would you recognize a functional use?

My skepticism was forced on me. Before learning Hebrew, I spoke two foreign languages fluently, and had studied another two. Then when I read Tanakh, I found that Winegreen, and especially Gesenius, neither follow the linguistic patterns I had learned in all the other languages I had studied, nor followed the text of Tanakh that I saw before me. As a result, I question everything.

According to the Masoretic points, there is no piel of this root.

As stated above, the Masoretic points are not evidence.

According to Gesenius, … BDB, … HALOT, … Holladay, … Logos morphological tags, there is no piel of this root.

None of these are independent sources, as they are all dependent on the Masoretic points, which are not evidence.

I've never seen any reason to read any instance of לקח as piel.

How would you define and recognize such a use? Before you can insist that there is none, you have to define what functional use a piel conjugation would impart to a verb.

You're the only one that I've ever heard of that would, on the basis of his rejection of (1) the Masoretic tradition and (2) the concept of the qal passive, actually make the claim that there is perhaps a piel of the root לקח.

I was taught science. In science, one person who is correct trumps the rest of the world when the rest of the world is wrong. Therefore, the claim that I’m the only one scares me not one whit.

The Masoretic tradition is demonstrably wrong at times, therefore cannot be trusted. I question the concept of the qal passive, having neither rejected it nor accepted it.

This has gone beyond healthy skepticism. Again, if you are truly suggesting that לקח has a piel form (this can be demonstrated by a participle מלקח [for example]), then prove it.

Participles in Biblical Hebrew are nouns, not verbs. Sometimes they refer to objects, sometimes to gerunds (which are also nouns). מלקח is found six times in Tanakh. From its consonantal form, it’s either a piel/pual participle or a hophal participle.

If you don't actually think that it has a piel form, then why use such a proposition to undermine the concept of a qal passive?

Because the whole idea of a qal passive seems flakey to me. So basically I’m asking for proof that it exists.

Meanwhile, there’s nothing that says that a piel/pual conjugation can’t be applied to almost any verb in Biblical Hebrew, including applied to לקח.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

Karl says

How would you define and recognize such a use? Before you can insist that there is none, you have to define what functional use a piel conjugation would impart to a verb.

The piel form does not "impart" any functional use on the conjugation. The qal and the piel forms of the same verb may have just acquired a slightly shifted meaning to help expand and refine the language.
Take for example the verb שלם. In Isaiah 60:20 we have it in the sense of 'end'
שָׁלְמוּ יְמֵי אֶבְלֵךְ
KJV: "and the days of thy mourning shall be ended"
But in Judges 1:7 we have it in the sense of "pay'
כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי כֵּן שִׁלַּם לִי אֱלֹהִים
KJV: "as I have done, so God hath requited me"

And indeed, there is no inherent objection to finding some use for לִקַּח.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

And indeed, there is no inherent objection to finding some use for לִקַּח.

Only the real objection that we find no instances of it that could ever be confirmed, and that it is not included in any lexicon (because no one finds לִקֵּחַ\לִקַּח in the history of the language).

[Isaac Fried]

By "finding" I mean "inventing".

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

By "finding" I mean "inventing".

Right. It could not be otherwise.

[Isaac Fried]

Yes, because the entire language is invented.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

Yes, because the entire language is invented.

Maybe that is the source of our differences. I don't believe that languages are invented (other than fake languages, like Esperanto and Sindarin). They emerged naturally from the need for communication and from the tools provided by nature.

[Isaac Fried]

Jason writes

They emerged naturally from the need for communication and from the tools provided by nature

Yes, this is very true. Language "emerged naturally" by man inventing, when ready, words and a grammar to fulfill his desire to vocally communicate with friends and family. Then he invented more words and refined the grammar to express himself in a clearer way.
In any event, he who invented
הִזְרִיק, 'injected', of the root זרק
שִתֵּק, 'paralized', of the root שתק
עִמֵּד, 'paginated', of the root עמד
חִזֵּר, 'courted', of the root חזר
will invent some good use for לִקַּח, otherwise, not found yet in the language.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

Jason writes

They emerged naturally from the need for communication and from the tools provided by nature

Yes, this is very true. Language "emerged naturally" by man inventing, when ready, words and a grammar to fulfill his desire to vocally communicate with friends and family. Then he invented more words and refined the grammar to express himself in a clearer way.
In any event, he who invented
הִזְרִיק, 'injected', of the root זרק
שִתֵּק, 'paralized', of the root שתק
עִמֵּד, 'paginated', of the root עמד
חִזֵּר, 'courted', of the root חזר
will invent some good use for לִקַּח, otherwise, not found yet in the language.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

He who invented those words is already dead and won't be inventing anything more. There was certainly intentional creativity directed at reviving the Hebrew language that caused word invention to fit the type of invention involved in the creation of the fake languages mentioned above. In nature, however, words emerged naturally with less creative force. I don't think there was much thought that went into the early tagging of concepts with sounds.