Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:22 pm
I don't understand how רואה את etc. is a noun.
bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org
http://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=22550
Joüon-Muraoka wrote: §125q
III) Accusative of the internal object. The internal object is an abstract noun of action, identical with, or analogous to the action expressed by the verb. By extension, some accusatives which are equivalent to this action or which determine it are said to be related to the internal object. The abstract noun of action is mainly the infinitive absolute, which may be used as the acc. of the internal object, as has been discussed in § 123d ff. But any other form may be found, e.g. Nu 11.4 הִתְאַוּוּ תַּאַוָה Lat. cupierunt cupidinem = they were seized with covetousness (Ps 106.14; Pr 21.26); Zc 1.2 קָצַף … קָ֫צֶף he was very indignant; פְּקֻדָּה Nu 16.29; אַהֲבָה 1Sm 20.17; קְבוּרָה Jr 22.19; פַּ֫חַד Ps 14.5; חֵטְא La 1.8. It occurs also with a noun synonymous with the verb: יָדַע בִּינָה to have intelligence (lit. to know or to learn intelligence: Is 29.24; Pr 4.1; Jb 38.4; 1Ch 12.32; 2Ch 2.11, 12).
The accusative of the internal object is found not only with transitive verbs (e.g. Gn 43.3), but also with intransitive verbs: Ez 18.21 חָיֹה יִחְיֶה Lat. vitam (vivere) vivet = he will live life; Jn 4.6 וַיִּשְׂמַח … שִׂמְחָה גדולה he rejoiced … exceedingly; 4.1 וַיֵּ֫רַע אֶל־יונה רָעָה גדולה and Jonah was mightily displeased; and also with reflexive and passive verbs: Nu 16.29 פְּקֻדַּת כל־הָאָדָם יִפָּקֵד עֲלֵיהֶם they are punished with the punishment of all men; Jr 22.19 קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר יִקָּבֵר he shall have the burial of a donkey (cf. § 123r); 1Sm 20.6; Gn 17.13; Nu 11.4; Ex 21.12; prob. הָלַךְ רָכִיל Lv 19.16 etc. to defame (רכיל, noun of action: circulation, hence defamation; cf. König, Syntax, § 329 k).
[[Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006), 420–421.]]
It isn't. A participle is a verbal adjective. Like all adjectives, it can be used substantivally. This doesn't mean that it needs to be understood as a substantive all the time. Only when it is used that way.
Can you explain what you mean by that? If the subject falls at the division point of the verse, it will go into pause. Nothing prevents that from ever happening. I don't understand what you mean or why you raised this point.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:35 pm There is no reason for a pausal pointing of the subject of a phrase.
שָׂמֵחַ לַעֲזֹר בְּכָל־אֹ֫פֶן שֶׁהוּא, אָחִי.Refael Shalev wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:48 pm Hi Jason,
I agree with your words and happy to learn the english terminology of the parts of speech.
Can you point to an example of “רואה את” in Tanakh? I just did a quick electronic search and didn’t find it. But then electronic searches occasionally miss items.
Gen 31:5kwrandolph wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:28 pm Can you point to an example of “רואה את” in Tanakh? I just did a quick electronic search and didn’t find it. But then electronic searches occasionally miss items.
Karl W. Randolph.
The problem with this division is that the second phrase is a nonsense phrase—it has a verb and an object, but no subject.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:33 pm The Masoretes divide it up this way, which I agree with:
כֵּן אָרְחוֹת כָּל־בֹּצֵעַ בָּ֫צַע
אֶת־נֶפֶשׁ בְּעָלָיו יִקָּח
We had a guy who was on this discussion group who made the confident claim that היום “today” never preceded its verb. I found a few, thereby disproving his claim. I mention this to show that just because the majority of examples have one action, it does not follow that all have the same action.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:33 pm The first phrase is כֵּן אָרְחוֹת כָּל־בֹּצֵעַ בָּ֫צַע "Thus are the ways of everyone who make unlawful gain." HALOT specifically mentions the verb לִבְצֹעַ functioning with its cognate accusative בֶּ֫צַע and gives several verses as examples (Jer 6:13; 8:10; Eze 22:27; Hab 2:9; Prov 1:19; and 15:27). This isn't a one-off and isn't ambiguous.
Your “it” is not spelled out in this verse, which is expected if it were the subject. You add to the text. Further, to what does “it” refer? To the taking of an unjust cut, or the unjust cut itself? If בצע is the subject of the second clause, then it is either being used twice in the verse, or it belongs to the second phrase.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:33 pm The second phrase is אֶת־נֶפֶשׁ בְּעָלָיו יִקָּח. The subject of יִקַּח would be בֶּ֫צַע. That is, "it [unlawful gain] takes the life of the one who has it."