On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

A place for those new to Biblical Hebrew to ask basic questions about the language of the Hebrew Bible.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Refael Shalev
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:07 pm

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Refael Shalev »

I don't understand how רואה את etc. is a noun.
Refael Shalev
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Jason Hare »

The Masoretes divide it up this way, which I agree with:

כֵּן אָרְחוֹת כָּל־בֹּצֵעַ בָּ֫צַע
אֶת־נֶפֶשׁ בְּעָלָיו יִקָּח


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. 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."

The phrase בּוֹצֵעַ בֶּ֫צַע appears also in Jer 6:13; 8:10; Hab 2:9 and Prov 15:27. It is the exact phrase using the masculine singular qal participle and everything. Precisely the expression, so I don't know how you can say that "בצע בצע is [not] a compound verb." No one said it was. It's an "accusative of the internal object," like "rejoice a great joy" and "fear a great fear" (cf. Joüon-Muraoka §125q).
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.]]
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Jason Hare »

Refael Shalev wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:22 pm I don't understand how רואה את etc. is a noun.
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.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:35 pm There is no reason for a pausal pointing of the subject of a phrase.
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.

Besides, בצע is object of the participle. It isn't the subject of its phrase.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Refael Shalev
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:07 pm

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Refael Shalev »

Hi Jason,

I agree with your words and happy to learn the english terminology of the parts of speech. 🙂
Refael Shalev
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Jason Hare »

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. 🙂
שָׂמֵחַ לַעֲזֹר בְּכָל־אֹ֫פֶן שֶׁהוּא, אָחִי. :)
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
kwrandolph
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by kwrandolph »

Refael Shalev wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:22 pm I don't understand how רואה את etc. is a noun.
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.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph 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.
Gen 31:5
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לָהֶ֗ן רֹאֶ֤ה אָנֹכִי֙ אֶת־פְּנֵ֣י אֲבִיכֶ֔ן כִּֽי־אֵינֶ֥נּוּ‬ אֵלַ֖י כִּתְמֹ֣ל שִׁלְשֹׁ֑ם וֵֽאלֹהֵ֣י אָבִ֔י הָיָ֖ה עִמָּדִֽי׃

Gen 39:23
אֵ֣ין ׀ שַׂ֣ר בֵּית־הַסֹּ֗הַר רֹאֶ֤ה אֶֽת־כָּל־מְא֨וּמָה֙ בְּיָדֹ֔ו בַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אִתֹּ֑ו וַֽאֲשֶׁר־ה֥וּא עֹשֶׂ֖ה יְהוָ֥ה מַצְלִֽיחַ׃

Ex 20:18
וְכָל־הָעָם֩ רֹאִ֨ים‬ אֶת־הַקֹּולֹ֜ת ‬וְאֶת־הַלַּפִּידִ֗ם וְאֵת֙ קֹ֣ול הַשֹּׁפָ֔ר וְאֶת־הָהָ֖ר עָשֵׁ֑ן וַיַּ֤רְא הָעָם֙ וַיָּנֻ֔עוּ וַיַּֽעַמְד֖וּ מֵֽרָחֹֽק׃

Num 14:22
כִּ֣י כָל־הָאֲנָשִׁ֗ים הָרֹאִ֤ים אֶת־כְּבֹדִי֙ וְאֶת־אֹ֣תֹתַ֔י אֲשֶׁר־עָשִׂ֥יתִי בְמִצְרַ֖יִם וּבַמִּדְבָּ֑ר וַיְנַסּ֣וּ אֹתִ֗י זֶ֚ה עֶ֣שֶׂר פְּעָמִ֔ים וְלֹ֥א שָׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹולִֽי׃

2 Sam 18:27
וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ הַצֹּפֶ֔ה אֲנִ֤י רֹאֶה֙ אֶת־מְרוּצַ֣ת הָרִאשֹׁ֔ון כִּמְרֻצַ֖ת אֲחִימַ֣עַץ בֶּן־צָדֹ֑וק וַיֹּ֤אמֶר הַמֶּ֨לֶךְ֙ אִֽישׁ־טֹ֣וב זֶ֔ה וְאֶל־בְּשֹׂורָ֥ה טֹובָ֖ה יָבֹֽוא׃

Isa 28:4
וְֽהָ֨יְתָ֜ה‬ צִיצַ֤ת‬ נֹבֵל֙ צְבִ֣י תִפְאַרְתֹּ֔ו אֲשֶׁ֥ר עַל־רֹ֖אשׁ גֵּ֣יא‬ שְׁמָנִ֑ים כְּבִכּוּרָהּ֙‬ בְּטֶ֣רֶם קַ֔יִץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִרְאֶ֤ה הָֽרֹאֶה֙ אֹותָ֔הּ בְּעֹודָ֥הּ בְּכַפֹּ֖ו יִבְלָעֶֽנָּה‬׃

There are others. On Logos, I searched for "lemma:ראה@VaR" (that is, root ראה as verb qal participle). I then went through the list looking for the particle את before the direct object. I didn't go through the whole list.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
kwrandolph
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by kwrandolph »

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
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 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.
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.

Here you have far fewer examples—three others with the same spelling, two with a different spelling—there’s no reason to insist that this example be treated exactly as the other examples. All the other examples are in subject clauses, this one example is in an object clause. Further, בצע “the one taking an unjust cut” already has the meaning of “unjust cut” so the following noun in not necessary.
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."
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.

Karl W. Randolph.
Refael Shalev
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:07 pm

Re: On the subject of accuracy of the masoretic vowel tradition. May be of interesting to kwrandolph

Post by Refael Shalev »

Karl,
יקח contains the subject and the action like לקחתי/תיקח etc.

With all due respect I think that you should point how po'el participle is functioning like an action and the person that do it.
Or ,in case you don't agree with the niqqud, please offer another form of niqqud we could discuss.

Just read the prior verses...
Refael Shalev
Post Reply