Deuteronomy 33:27-28

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 5:03 pm Karl,

How do you distinguish between the hiphil imperative (הקטל) and the hophal perfect (הקטל)? What makes you certain that it's hophal and not hiphil?
Context.

Because of the many homographs in Biblical Hebrew, we have to depend on context to tell us when a particular spelling is for a noun, a verb, an adjective, and so forth. These are the same tools that the ancients used to read the text.
Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 5:03 pm This isn't about trusting the writers of the consonantal text over against the Masoretes.
When one spelling is used for one binyan and the Masoretes pointed it as another binyan, how can it not be trusting the writers of the consonantal text over the Masoretes?
Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 5:03 pm You haven't proved that the Masoretes were incorrect.
And you haven’t proven that they were correct.
Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 5:03 pm You're just ever so eager to reject all points…
Hey, don’t assume motives that have not been said. I reluctantly abandoned the points because the more I read Tanakh, the more I noticed that the meanings indicated by the points diverged from the meanings and usages indicated by the unpointed text.
Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 5:03 pm and declare yourself more knowledgeable and more reasonable in your conclusions. I think the Masoretic points should be accepted as-is, and if we disagree with them on occasion (as happens), great. But don't just reject them outright and act as if they were always wrong (which they certainly are not). You are too eager to call them fools.
Hey, don’t put words into another person’s mouth that he hasn’t said. Where have I once called the Masoretes “fools”? Where have I once claimed that “they were always wrong”? You owe me an apology.

However, I have one advantage over the Masoretes—the Masoretes learned Tiberian Hebrew as a second language. Tiberian Hebrew was a development of DSS Hebrew which had largely adopted an Into-European grammar, especially for verbal usage. As a result, the Masoretes tried to fit the square peg of Biblical Hebrew into the round hole of Tiberian Hebrew. It didn’t always work.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28

Post by Jason Hare »

Karl,

I owe you an apology? You take every opportunity that you can to act like the Masoretes knew nothing. They knew Hebrew as a second language, so you have an advantage over them by not knowing it as a second language? They spoke Hebrew. Do you speak Hebrew? I don't see what advantage you're claiming to have over them, nor do I think that you have even demonstrated that הקטל is necessarily hophal. Short imperative and jussive forms move î to ē in the second syllable of the hiphil. Thus, הקטל is the imperative form of the hiphil (hiphil perfect 3ms הִקְטִיל → hiphil imperative 2ms הַקְטֵל). You justify your argument and your rejection of the points just by claiming this is not the case, but it just goes to show that you are not fully aware of the paradigms.

Jason
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
משלי י״ב, י׳
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28

Post by Isaac Fried »

It is all simple and clear. The הוּפְעָל verbal form is a verb, or act, augmented by the "prefixed" PP הוּא, 'he', for the beneficiary of the act. For example,
הדגל הוּרַד (= הוּא-רד) לחצי התוֹרן,
'the flag was lowered to half mast'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
kwrandolph
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:05 pm Karl,

I owe you an apology? You take every opportunity that you can to act like the Masoretes knew nothing.
That is a false statement, which is why I said you owe me an apology. Because it is a false statement in a public arena, that’s libel.
Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:05 pm They knew Hebrew as a second language, so you have an advantage over them by not knowing it as a second language? They spoke Hebrew. Do you speak Hebrew?
It’s a well known issue that the closer are the cognate languages spoken, the harder it is to keep them apart in one’s mind. The Masoretes spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue. Aramaic is a close cognate language to Hebrew.

The Hebrew that the Masoretes learned and spoke as a second language was from an era 1000 years after the last native speaker of Biblical Hebrew had died. In that 1000 years, the Hebrew learned as a second language had been influenced by the languages Jews spoke as their native tongues—first Aramaic, then Persian, then Greek, and Latin. By the time the Masoretes inherited Hebrew, it was a significantly different language, not only in the pronunciations inherited from the other languages, but also in the grammar and word meaning changes. The Masoretes were not dumb, but these are the linguistic cards they were dealt and they made the best of it that they knew how.

But they made one false assumption, namely that the Hebrew they had inherited was the same Hebrew used by the writers of the Tanakh. As a result, they made many mistakes in meaning (not counting that their pronunciations were not Biblical).

Nobody today speaks Biblical Hebrew. 1) most importantly, Biblical pronunciations have been long lost. We have very few clues that indicate that Biblical pronunciations were significantly different from modern pronunciations, or even Masoretic pronunciations, but they are not enough to reconstruct Biblical pronunciations. 2) Biblical Hebrew lacks the vocabulary for much of modern life.

I mentioned that I had an advantage over the Masoretes, and that is linguistic. 1) I don’t know cognate languages to Biblical Hebrew, whereas the Masoretes’ native tongue was Aramaic. Because of Aramaic being both as close cognate language and their native tongue, they tended to have Aramaic influence their understanding of Hebrew (I interpret the Aramaic portions of Tanakh using Hebrew—linguistically just as wrong, but hopefully not having Aramaic influence my understanding of Biblical Hebrew). 2) Though I inherited the same Hebrew as did the Masoretes through what I was taught in class, I had not internalized that version of Hebrew before diving into Tanakh. Unlike the Masoretes, I didn’t have reinforcement bringing me back to that version of Hebrew. Basically, I let Biblical Hebrew flow over me, like a child learns his native tongue.
Jason Hare wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:05 pm I don't see what advantage you're claiming to have over them, nor do I think that you have even demonstrated that הקטל is necessarily hophal.
Context, man, context. In this particular example, השמד in Deuteronomy 33:27, a passive is indicated by the context. Hiphil is an active conjugation, which rules out the Hiphil. However the form השמד fits both the context and the form of the Hophal conjugation.

Karl W. Randolph.
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28

Post by Isaac Fried »

It is all clear and simple. The הִפְעִיל verbal form is a verb, or act, augmented by a "prefixed" PP היא, 'he', for the performer of the act, and an "infixed" PP היא, 'he', for the beneficiary of the act. For example,
יצחק הִשְלִים (= היא-של-היא-ם) את המכתב
'Isaac completed the letter'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:15 am Context, man, context. In this particular example, השמד in Deuteronomy 33:27, a passive is indicated by the context.
How can a single word within a quote constitute a context? Where do you get from context that it needs to be passive?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
משלי י״ב, י׳
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28

Post by Jason Hare »

Isaac Fried wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:05 am It is all clear and simple. The הִפְעִיל verbal form is a verb, or act, augmented by a "prefixed" PP היא, 'he', for the performer of the act, and an "infixed" PP היא, 'he', for the beneficiary of the act. For example,
יצחק הִשְלִים (= היא-של-היא-ם) את המכתב
'Isaac completed the letter'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
In this case, is the letter the beneficiary of the act or the person who receives the letter? Or, is it the person who began writing the letter but didn't finish it - such that Isaac had to complete the act of writing? Maybe the internal היא is the one who paid to have the letter written, as in the client of the attorney who was writing the letter. What do you think? Or, was the real beneficiary the woman who was to receive this divorce letter from the attorney of her husband, whom she's been wishing to be free of for over a decade? I guess we'll never know, so we may just as well make things up as we go along.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
משלי י״ב, י׳
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28

Post by Isaac Fried »

Jason writes
Or, was the real beneficiary the woman who was to receive this divorce letter from the attorney of her husband, whom she's been wishing to be free of for over a decade?
This is really an inventive, intriguing and titillating possibility.
so we may just as well make things up as we go along.
Yes, as usual in life.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28

Post by Isaac Fried »

It is all simple and clear. The פֻּעַל verbal form is a verb, or act, augmented by the "infixed" PP הוּא, 'he', for the beneficiary of the act. For example, Gen. 44:3
הַבֹּקֶר אוֹר וְהָאֲנָשִׁים שֻׁלְּחוּ 
where
שֻלְּחוּ = ש-הוּא-לח-הוּא
with the last הוּא standing for the many.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Deuteronomy 33:27-28

Post by Jason Hare »

Isaac Fried wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:11 pm It is all simple and clear. The פֻּעַל verbal form is a verb, or act, augmented by the "infixed" PP הוּא, 'he', for the beneficiary of the act. For example, Gen. 44:3
הַבֹּקֶר אוֹר וְהָאֲנָשִׁים שֻׁלְּחוּ 
where
שֻלְּחוּ = ש-הוּא-לח-הוּא
with the last הוּא standing for the many.
The "they" element is in the suffix. Thus, שֻׁלַּח "he was sent" versus שֻׁלְּחוּ "they were sent." The "standing for the many" is not the infix. The -u- infix just represents passive in Hebrew outside of the niphal.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
משלי י״ב, י׳
Post Reply