Usually, but not always. E.g. Ecclesiastes 9:11.Ken M. Penner wrote:In Ecclesiastes, the participle is usually spelled יודע.kwrandolph wrote:How do you know this is not a participle when read in context:
והסכל ירבה דברים לא ידע האדם מה שיהיה?
I’ve found the Masoretic points demonstrably wrong often enough that I now insist that they not be counted as a reliable reference. By “demonstrably wrong”, I mean according to the meaning given by the points, not whether or not they correctly reference Biblical pronunciation (which they also don’t).Ken M. Penner wrote:I make that claim on the basis of the Masoretic points. Feel free to ignore them; I don't.kwrandolph wrote: On what basis do you claim that this is a prefix conjugation (the Masoretic points don’t count as evidence)?
Good Biblical Hebrew is אני לא ידעתי according to the majority of recorded conversations in Tanakh.Ken M. Penner wrote:אני לא יודעkwrandolph wrote: But I agree with you that the Yiqtol doesn’t express “aspect” (a time measurement) nor tense. As a result, this is why I wonder how well a modern Israeli who knows only modern Hebrew would understand good Biblical Hebrew, because modern Hebrew is a tense based language?
You shouldn’t make a claim that’s so easy to check. What about Ruth 3:11? Samuel gives indications of early authorship, and the form is found three times in those books. Also found in Isaiah, Amos and other kingdom period books. (Actually the consonantal form appears more often, but as a Niphal, not a participle.) Ecclesiastes is an early kingdom era book, written over four centuries after the Pentateuch. Since the fuller spelling of the participle is found in other kingdom era books, why not also here?Ken M. Penner wrote:No, I don't mean that. To use just the example in this message, check out the fuller spelling of the participle יודע and compare it books we know are early and to books we know are late. יודע never appears in the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, but it does in Esther, Ezekiel, & 2 Chronicles.kwrandolph wrote:You mean that about 950 BC is “late Biblical Hebrew”?Ken M. Penner wrote:Mind you, this is late biblical Hebrew. It could be different in earlier stages of Hebrew.
Karl W. Randolph.