qal passive particple vs niphal participle
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2021 7:20 pm
Is there a difference in meaning between the Qal passive participle and the Niphal participle?
thanks.
thanks.
bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org
http://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=22549
To add my agreement to David's statement above:SteveMiller wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 7:20 pm Is there a difference in meaning between the Qal passive participle and the Niphal participle?
thanks.
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.
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.
And how many Qals were pointed as Piels, and other possibilities?
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.
I guess that you already understood that When I said "verb", I meant only "QTL/YQTL".kwrandolph wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:33 pmThe 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.
In Levi (in all of the relevant verses), it talks about the appearance (not the mark), so it is an adjective.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:33 pmThere 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.
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).kwrandolph wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:33 pmThat 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.
This is another discussion, and I know your view already, and that is why I wanted to focus on the Piel/Pual participles.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:33 pmAnd 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.
Can you give one or two examples of where מאכל comes as a Piel/Pual?kwrandolph wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:33 pmHow 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.
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?