B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

I have just found this in my mailbox from Academia:

Is the Adjective Distinct from the Noun as a Grammatical Category in Biblical Hebrew?
by Jacobus Naude

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Isaac Fried wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:49 pm I have just found this in my mailbox from Academia:

Is the Adjective Distinct from the Noun as a Grammatical Category in Biblical Hebrew?
by Jacobus Naude

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Absolutely. Adjectives are called שְׁמוֹת תּ֫וֹאַר and nouns שְׁמוֹת עֶ֫צֶם, but they are both categories of שמות and fall into the same patterns. Thus, דָּבָר (a "noun") and יָשָׁר (an "adjective") decline identically.

דָּבָר
דְּבַר
דְּבָרִים
דִּבְרֵי

יָשָׁר
יְשַׁר
יְשָׁרִים
יִשְׁרֵי

The only difference is that the adjective will also have feminine forms, so that דָּבָר will not become *דְּבָרָה whereas יָשָׁר will become יְשָׁרָה and the other feminine forms. The two things that strongly set adjectives apart are that they will generally have two genders and that they do not have hidden gender (they take the ending that they agree with, unlike words like מִלִּים [feminine] and חֲלוֹמוֹת [masculine]).

Of course, Naude's conclusion is: “We conclude that the noun and the adjective are distinct lexical categories in biblical Hebrew and they should not be subsumed under the category of ‘substantive’ or ‘nomen’. An examination of syntactic features provides principled means for differentiating the two within the biblical text.”

Jason writes

The only difference is that the adjective will also have feminine forms, so that דָּבָר will not become *דְּבָרָה whereas יָשָׁר will become יְשָׁרָה and the other feminine forms. The two things that strongly set adjectives apart are that they will generally have two genders and that they do not have hidden gender (they take the ending that they agree with, unlike words like מִלִּים [feminine] and חֲלוֹמוֹת [masculine]).

Yes, קערה, 'bowl', and עגלה, 'carriage', are indeed both "feminine". And so is קעוּרה and עגוּלה, as opposed to קעוּר and עגוֹל, which are both "masculine". Also גדוֹלה and גדוּלה.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:33 pm Do you have any examples from Tanakh to back up these claims?

You can see it all the time without even realize that you read it.
for example:

Zach. 8:4 עוד ישבו זקנים וזקנות
You automatically read it as "old men and old women"
but the text just used the adjective "old".
And check this word so common like that, also with pronouns.

Gen. 25:30 מן האדם האדם הזה
And NIV writes: "some of that red stew".
The word "stew" is not written in the bible - only "red".

Sometimes the adjective can turn to be a "pure noun" (and it comes from the same principle).
For example, the word מלאה which is an adjective but also act as a noun for the "full produce"
or the word חמה which means "hot (f)" - and its meaning as a noun is "sun"

It also comes with pronouns - like יפתי which means "my pretty (girl/woman/and so on)". (I think this is more common).

And basically, the whole matter of "adjective" is a little "messy" in the Bible.

I mean, basically, every passive participle, can be understood as an adjective without its noun. And by the way, also the word משיח which only means "annoited" (and we have כהן משיח annoited priest, מלך משיח annoited king).

Basically, what I want to say, that sometimes the adjective itself is enough in the sentence.

**
Also, this thing has nothing to do with the subject that we're talking about. I just wrote it because I saw someone write something about it. But it really doesn't relevant to the verse in this subject.

kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:33 pm

ducky wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 1:26 pm But according to the context, whether it is "is" or shall be", it is about the same time as this conversation because her born son that she will bring is to be growing in the era of the prosper Judea, and the elimination of Aram and Israel.

You add to the text to make this claim. Nowhere in the text does it specifically say that the child was to be born in the near future. 500 years later is still a literal fulfillment of the prophesy as written.

I did not add that text.
Read verse 16:
כִּי בְּטֶרֶם יֵדַע הַנַּעַר מָאֹס בָּרָע וּבָחֹר בַּטּוֹב תֵּעָזֵב הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה קָץ מִפְּנֵי שְׁנֵי מְלָכֶיהָ

[NIV]: for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

So here, you can see, that according to verse 16, the same boy that would be born would live at that specific era.


And by the way, was there any point in jesus's life that he didn't know enough to reject evil?
Because that boy had that point in his life - like any boy.
This is also a matter for you to answer if you want to see this boy as jesus.

kwrandolph wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:33 pm

ducky wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 1:26 pm You said before:
Your quote: "Isaiah specifically said “house of David”, meaning the Davidic dynasty, not limited to the present occupant of the throne."

And I want to ask you: When it is said in verse 2 that the House of David got the message of Judea being attack-threatened, What does it mean?
Who got the message?
I don't need you to be very specific, only tell me if you claim that the whole Davidic Dynasty got it - or was it just the specific present kingship - which is from the Davidic dynasty?

Ahaz was a wicked king, and the only reason God put up with him was because he was a member of the Davidic dynasty.

The threat that he faced was not just against him, but the replacement of the whole Davidic dynasty. Hence Isaiah was sent to report that the Davidic dynasty was not to be replaced.

Saying that any threat on the king would mean a threat also about his dynasty is obvious. but it doesn't answer my question.

**
Also, Did "Isaiah was sent to report that"?
I thought it was people of the army who keeps the borders.

It is said that after Ahaz got the message, he feard.
And then, In verse 3, God tells Isaiah to go to ahaz and "relax" him from his fear that he had after he heard the attack-threat.

But you know what, it also doesn't matter.
*

And I didn't find the answer in your words.
I must ask that again.
In verse 2 - it was said that the House of David got this message. Who got it?

Was it Ahaz?
Was it David?
Was it all of the eternal souls of the Davidic Dynasty, past, and future?

ויגד לבית דוד
ויגד to whom?

It is a very simple question.

ducky wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:41 pm Was it Ahaz?
Was it David?
Was it all of the eternal souls of the Davidic Dynasty, past, and future?

Calls to mind Palpatine: "I am all the Sith!"

Isaac Fried wrote: Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:49 pm I have just found this in my mailbox from Academia:

Is the Adjective Distinct from the Noun as a Grammatical Category in Biblical Hebrew?
by Jacobus Naude

One weakness is that he assumes that the Masoretic points are correct. But when I looked at his examples, I understood that several times I would have pointed the verses differently changing adjectives with null nouns to simple nouns. Those examples had no need to change the consonantal text to reflect that they were nouns and not adjectives.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl writes

One weakness is that he assumes that the Masoretic points are correct. But when I looked at his examples, I understood that several times I would have pointed the verses differently changing adjectives with null nouns to simple nouns. Those examples had no need to change the consonantal text to reflect that they were nouns and not adjectives.

I have not read the paper.
I would not go so far as to say that the Masoretic points are "incorrect." There are possibly reasonable alternatives here and there. It is difficult to meaningfully comment on this without a concrete precise example.
One has to bear in mind that the niqud has assumed by now a degree of sanctitude in the jewish faith not far removed from the bare text itself.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Isaac Fried wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:59 pm One has to bear in mind that the niqud has assumed by now a degree of sanctitude in the jewish faith not far removed from the bare text itself.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Not only Jewish, but many others as well. The same is true of the medieval Tiberian grammar. The two are interconnected—the grammar influenced which points to apply, and the points are used as evidence for the grammar.

Remember, it’s been only a little over a half century that the grammar was started to be questioned with the publication of J. Wash Watts book claiming that the verbal conjugations represent aspect instead of tense. Many have still not gotten the memo that researchers disagree on Biblical Hebrew. I personally found J. Wash Watts’ theory just as unworkable as the medieval grammar.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl writes

Remember, it’s been only a little over a half century that the grammar was started to be questioned with the publication of J. Wash Watts book claiming that the verbal conjugations represent aspect instead of tense. Many have still not gotten the memo that researchers disagree on Biblical Hebrew. I personally found J. Wash Watts’ theory just as unworkable as the medieval grammar.

Yet I don't think that this rethinking and reformulation of the grammar prevented previous generations from correctly understanding the biblical text.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

I don't even know what rethinking or reformulation of grammar Karl is talking about. He fails to give us any examples.