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.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 1:49 pm So why should anyone assume that [the Masoretic] points are correct?
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?