B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

ducky wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:05 pm Without getting into the conversation itself, I just want to say that when I wrote before that the form was "ratt", I think it is better to say that this "ratt" was based on "ritt" first (which the rit-->rat).
It doesn't change a thing, But I just had to say it.

I am curious why you say that the participle's historical development was like bígdu rather than kálbu, especially when we see יֹלַדְתְּ yōlaḏt and אֹמַנְתּוֹ ʾōmantô (both with internal a) rather than yōliḏt and ʾōmintô (similar to how we see בִּגְדּוֹ biḡdô).

Because participles like יולד (and it kind) has a Tsere on the L (yolEd).
This Tsere was derived from the historical Hiriq.
The participle form of "qotel" is based on:
qa:til-->(Canaanite shift)-->qotil -->(tonic i>e) -->qotel.
So my thought goes to the "i" sound as the original vowel that is in the form.
qotil+ti-->qotilti-->qotalti-->qotalt-->qotelet.
(That's what seems right to me, and I hope I am not wrong about this).

***
By the way, I noticed that you put Dagesh on the D of בגדו, but this word (and also בגדי) always comes without it.

Jason Hare wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:31 pm

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:56 pm All we know for certain is that Mishnaic Hebrew, and its daughters of Tiberian and modern Israeli Hebrews, are radically different from Biblical Hebrew.

If someone knows biblical Hebrew well, I don't think they're "radically" different. I simply don't agree.

How is the change of the verbal system from a mood based to a tense-based conjugation not radical?

Jason Hare wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:31 pm

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:56 pm

Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm To be clear, מְשָׁרַת məšāraṯ is feminine singular (an alternative of מְשָׁרֶ֫תֶת), and מְשָׁרֵת məšārēṯ is masculine singular.

The only way you think that is because of the Masoretic points. Without the Masoretic points, there’s no evidence whatsoever that it is a feminine adjective.

No. The whole point of this thread was that the form of the word seemed odd to me. It should be a feminine participle no matter how the Masoretes pointed it. It has to be feminine because the noun placed with it is feminine (Avishag). Obviously.

You start with an assumption that it has to be a feminine adjective, then try to fit a square peg into a round hole, …er…try to prove that a masculine form is feminine.

Jason Hare wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:31 pm

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:56 pm

Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm Ducky gave the correct and obvious explanation (məšāraṯ ← *məšāraṯt). It is simply the form that we would get if the segolate had not been resolved. The same as the few instances of יֹלַדְתְּ that we see in the Bible instead of יֹלֶ֫דֶת (cf. Gen 16.11; Judg 13.5,7),

Those examples in Genesis and Judges are Qatal Qal verbs, not participles.

Only to you. To the rest of the world, they are participles. Your idiosyncrasies are leading you to false conclusions again.

It doesn’t matter what the rest of the world thinks—neither science nor linguistics are decided on by majority vote. The forms used in these verses fit the use of the Qatal Qal, as they refer to a future event from the point of view of the speaker.

Jason Hare wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:31 pm

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:56 pm Nope. Every time you find יולדה it refers to the action of giving birth, while the four times יולדת us used, it refers to the birth mother, the woman who gave birth.

Isaiah 13:8b (NRSV)
Pangs and agony will seize them;
they will be in anguish like a woman in labor.

Isaiah 21:3b (NRSV)
pangs have seized me,
like the pangs of a woman in labor;

You know that translations are not evidence in this forum.

Jason Hare wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:31 pm Every time that I read the verses with יולדה, I see them referring to a woman in labor pangs, not to "the action of giving birth" (which would be לֵדָה, another of those pesky שמות פעולה that I mentioned previously, an alternative form of the infinitive construct in the Bible). Both יולדת and יולדה refer to the woman who is giving birth.

That’s your opinion. After studying all examples of both in Tanakh, I notice a nuanced difference.

As for לדה, the four times it’s used is in the sense of an event, “birth”. Lisowski lists it as a noun, separate from a verbal form.

Jason Hare wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:31 pm

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:56 pm

Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm and we shouldn't forget that we find other alternative qal participles in the feminine singular (שֹֽׁפְטָה for שֹׁפֶ֫טֶת

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, as there’s no feminine participle שפטת in Tanakh. The Qatal feminine verb שפטה is found, e.g. Judges 4:4.

I was talking about the forms that a word can appear in. I know that שֹׁפֶ֫טֶת doesn't exist in the Bible, but that's because the fs participle of this word is only used ONCE in the biblical text. Had it been used more, it could have appeared both as שֹׁפֶ֫טֶת and as שֹׁפְטָה. The point is that these are alternative forms for the same thing. Why do I feel like you're intentionally misunderstanding?

That’s one place where I and you disagree—the Masoretes didn’t believe that the consonantal text was accurately transmitted, rather that it was full of mistakes, an assessment with which you apparently agree; while I take the position that the consonantal text was better transmitted and that these “alternate forms” represent nuances of meaning.

Jason Hare wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:31 pm

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:56 pm

Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm and אֹֽכְלָה for אֹכֶ֫לֶת [אוֹכֵלָה in Isa 29.6 and others]).

The adjective אוכלה is found three times, each time describing fire Isaiah 29:6, 30:30 and 33:14.
The noun אכלה refers to food, what is eaten. The same consonantal form is found as a verb. I didn’t analyze all the places where it is found in this answer to you.
A quick spot check of אכלת found only verbs, no participles.

Your quick spot checks are faulty.

Fire is described with the fs participle אֹכֶ֫לֶת in Exodus 24:17:

Exodus 24:17
וּמַרְאֵה֙ כְּבֹ֣וד יְהוָ֔ה כְּאֵ֥שׁ אֹכֶ֖לֶת בְּרֹ֣אשׁ הָהָ֑ר לְעֵינֵ֖י בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

That’s the problem with spot checks, they sometimes miss things. That’s why I said it was a spot check.

Jason Hare wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:31 pm This should be compared to the following:

Deuteronomy 9:3
וְיָדַעְתָּ֣ הַיּ֗וֹם כִּי֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהֶ֜יךָ הֽוּא־הָעֹבֵ֤ר לְפָנֶ֙יךָ֙ אֵ֣שׁ אֹֽכְלָ֔ה ה֧וּא יַשְׁמִידֵ֛ם וְה֥וּא יַכְנִיעֵ֖ם לְפָנֶ֑יךָ וְהֽוֹרַשְׁתָּ֤ם וְהַֽאַבַדְתָּם֙ מַהֵ֔ר כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה לָֽךְ׃

Both forms are participles.

You find participles where tables of paradigms don’t show them.

Jason Hare wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:31 pm

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:56 pm

Jason Hare wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:10 pm We have to think of מְשָׁרַת simply as an alternative form for מְשָׁרֶ֫תֶת with the resolution of the consonant cluster by assimilation rather than by inserting the segols. Any argument to the contrary is clearly absurd.

You have not given a good argument to back up your claim of consonant cluster assimilation. Hence my questions still stand.

What I'm consistently getting is that you don't now how to recognize a participle in Hebrew.

Rather I disagree with the Masoretes as to when a particular form is a participle, and when it is a verb. The Masoretes, based on tense-conjugated Tiberian Hebrew, when they encountered many words whose forms could be either participles or verbs, when the contexts indicate present actions, they counted and pointed them as participles considering them present-tense verbs. But Biblical Hebrew didn’t treat participles as present-tense verbs. Participles were either nouns or adjectives.

Jason Hare wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:31 pm Attachment: לידה in the lexicon HALOT. This is the word for the act of giving birth.

I notice that HALOT gives only a medieval Hebrew definition—is it the same as Biblical Hebrew?

Notice the form of the word is that of a noun, in fact is in parallel with other nouns in Hosea 9:11. Looking at all the times it’s used seems to indicate that in Biblical Hebrew it referred to “birth event” rather than “giving birth”.

Karl W. Randolph.

Reading ילדת as Qal qatal is valid as well.
I mean it also fits the syntax and grammar.

And it seems that this "sentence" was known as a pattern:
הנך הרה וילדת בן
Here it is in 2ndperson.

But in Isaiah 7:14 the same pattern comes in a 3rdperson:
הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן
(instead the 2ndperson הנך comes a 3rdperson הנה העלמה)

But here, if it was Qal qatal, the word would have been וילדה:
הנה העלמה הרה וילדה בן
but the written word is no וילדה but it is וילדת - in the participle form.
So just like it comes here, in this pattern, in a participle form, why not read it as a participle also in the 2ndperson sentence?

But... if you insist... You can still argue and say that וילדת in Isaiah can also be the old form of the feminine Qal qatal.

But notice that in Judges 13:3 there is a sentence with Qal qatal, but then, it starts also in qatal.
והרית וילדת בן
Here it starts with qatal and ends with qatal.

And it seems that the sentences that start with הנך/הנה הרה starts with a participle and ends with a participle.

Also, in Genesis 17:19 it is written
אבל שרה ילדת לך בן
In this case, you must read it as a participle.
And so, just a question:
Isn't it about the future?
isn't it like הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן?
or הנך הרה וילדת בן?
What's the difference?
I mean, it is okay wanting to read it as qatal, but why rejecting the participle when we see that there is nothing wrong with that, and even, it feels better.
****************************************
The participles יולדה/ילדה and ילדת/יולדת are really based on the same grammatical form.

And indeed, With these roots, it seems that they come in different connotations, so Hebrew, while creating the two optional feminine forms, differs them also in their context.
But that is a matter of this root and it is not relevant for the general matter.

Because the two forms (in any root) are the same.
Hebrew had two options of giving the feminine suffix:
1. at (while later the t was dropped and turned to be just "a")
2. t

And so, the participle "qotel<--qotil" had two ways to becomes feminine
1. qotil+at-->qotilat-->(T was dropped)-->qotila-->the "i" was reduced-->qotla
2.qotil+t-->qotalt-->qotelet

So basically, from participle אכל comes both אכלה and אכלת - it is just that each one was derived from another route.

****
Twice of לדה comes as infinitives
וכח אין ללדה
also here it is an optional feminine form
לדת took the "t" suffix
לדה took the "at>a" suffix

In Hosea, it talks about the time, but it is just a matter of speech. Just like one would say that he is cursed/blessed from birth (as the time of birth).
But it is a noun that takes the meaning of the act of the verb.
**********

next to the Tiberian MT, there were also the Babylonian MT and the Palestinian MT and they agreed about the participles... So it is not a specific dialect that should "take the blame".

If one wants to argue about misunderstanding the participles role, it can be checked easily.
The participle form of Hiphil, Hophal, Piel, and Pual is a clear participle.

Is there any role that the Qal participle gets that is not found in the other Binyanim?

If one claims that a lot of the Qal participles are not in their role (and shouldn't be participles), he can show that by showing that there are no clear participles in other Binyanim that have that role.

In Ex. 10:4 הנני מביא מחר ארבה בגבלך
Here is an Hiphil participle about "tomorrow" (with הנני).
So what's wrong with:
הנך הרה וילדת בן about "tomorrow" as well, with a Qal participle?

****************
This all started with the word משרת
So how is it should be read and understood in your opinion?