B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Jason Hare wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 12:22 pm @Glenn

I was thinking on this today while I was out walking, and I think it's unfortunate that we call both קֻטָּל and קָטוּל by the same name ("qal passive participle").

What we have is the "participle of the qal passive" (that is, קֻטָּל) and the "passive of the qal participle" (that is, קָטוּל). That is to say that the qal passive has its own fragmentary paradigm, and there is a participle that is included as part of that paradigm. On the other hand, the qal (which is generally active in theory) has a participle (קֹטֵל) that also takes a passive form (קָטוּל).

We really should distinguish these two things in our terminology, but they both come out as "qal passive participle," which is (again) unfortunate.

At BibleHub, here's how they "differentiate" the two participles:

Devarim 29:20 has the word הַכְּתוּבָ֖ה, they tag it as "Art | V‑Qal‑QalPassPrtcpl‑fs" (so stem='Qal', conjugation='Qal Passive Participle"

2 Kgs 2:10 - לֻקָּ֤ח, they tag it as "V‑QalPass‑Prtcpl‑ms" (so stem='QalPassive', conjugation="participle")

Glenn

I think the attack is over. Right now it's quiet.

Jason writes

I don't know what I could possibly do, though, to demonstrate that Hebrew should be approached like any other language, that it should be analyzed in terms of how it expresses real-life concepts.

Hebrew, unlike English, is a root based language. Still, both are certainly able to "expresses real-life concepts."

Someone asks about a passive form from the Bible, and they get told that a vocalic infix means "he" or "she" and given some weird combination of interpretational acrobatics.

Internal היא-הוא are gender neutral.

Qubuts can stand in an open syllable, though. That is, it can stand in an unaccented syllable that is open. How is this possible? Qubuts can represent either a long or a short vowel. If, for example, the Masoretes had received a verse in which שמרים was clearly supposed to be read as שְׁמוּרִים, it could be pointed as שְׁמֻרִים without violating any rule. The qubuts would simply be considered long (šəmūrîm instead of šəmûrîm).

There are no "long" and "short" vowels in Hebrew. In Deut. 29:20 it is הַכְּתוּבָה with no dagesh in the letter ב since the word is written in full בכתיב מלא. In Deut. 28:58 it is הַכְּתֻבִים, still with a dagehless letter ב, possibly because it was originally הַכְּתוּבִים.
Of course, הַכְּתוּבָה =היא-כת-הוּא-ב-היא with the internal הוּא referring to the הַבְּרִית, the covenant.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Isaac Fried wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:45 pm Hebrew, unlike English, is a root based language. Still, both are certainly able to "expresses real-life concepts."

Yep, especially when treated as a language and not a patchwork of interwoven personal pronouns.

Isaac Fried wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:45 pm Internal היא-הוא are gender neutral.

It's convenient when you invent the system with its rules. I'm going to guess that they are not only gender neutral but also number independent, so that a reconstructed הוא-היא that isn't really there in the word could actually be a הוא-היא-הם-הן type of thing. If we make it up as we go, why not also let them be person-free, so that they also stand for the complete set of הוא-היא-אני-את-אתה-הם-הן-אנחנו-אתם-אתן. Sounds good to me!

Isaac Fried wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:45 pm There are no "long" and "short" vowels in Hebrew.

That is your claim, in contradiction of all Hebrew grammarians.

Isaac Fried wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:45 pm In Deut. 29:20 it is הַכְּתוּבָה with no dagesh in the letter ב since the word is written in full בכתיב מלא. In Deut. 28:58 it is הַכְּתֻבִים, still with a dagehless letter ב, possibly because it was originally הַכְּתוּבִים.

Again, making up new rules. You said before that the dagesh was there because of the qubuts. Now you're making up a new rule to explain away the contradiction to your defunct theory.

Isaac Fried wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:45 pm Of course, הַכְּתוּבָה =היא-כת-הוּא-ב-היא with the internal הוּא referring to the הַבְּרִית, the covenant.

Yeah, yeah. I'm sure that's what it means.

Jason Hare wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:55 pm It's convenient when you invent the system with its rules. I'm going to guess that they are not only gender neutral but also number independent, so that a reconstructed הוא-היא that isn't really there in the word could actually be a הוא-היא-הם-הן type of thing. If we make it up as we go, why not also let them be person-free, so that they also stand for the complete set of הוא-היא-אני-את-אתה-הם-הן-אנחנו-אתם-אתן. Sounds good to me!

Oh, that's right... if we let it be את-אתה, what would we do when the language just happens to use an 'a' vowel? We have to reserve those (and maybe the whole את-אתה-אתם-אתן) for those 'a' vowels! I should be more clever and remember these things. What should we assign to 'o' and 'e' vowels? Or, do those just get to be vowels (because languages need vowels to work)?

Jason wrote

If we make it up as we go, why not also let them be person-free, so that they also stand for the complete set of הוא-היא-אני-את-אתה-הם-הן-אנחנו-אתם-אתן.

The insertion of a consonant into the root may be confusing, hence Hebrew resorts to qualifying the internal vowel-PP with an additional specific suffixed PP. Thus:
שֻלַּח =ש-הוּא-לח with הוּא referring to the thing sent away. Then
שֻלַּחְתִּי =שוּלח-אתי
שֻלַּחְתִָּ =שוּלח-אתה
שֻלַּחְתְּ =שוּלח-את
שֻלַּחָה =שוּלח-היא
שֻלַּחְנוּ =שוּלח-אנוּ
שֻלַּחְתִֶּם =שוּלח-אתם
שֻלַּחְתִֶּן =שוּלח-אתן
שֻלְּחוּ =שוּלח-הוּא

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Oh, don't forget שֻׁלְחָן where שׁ-הוּא-לח-הֵן gives us the root "sent" with the infixes that mean "he/she" and "they" all together. Thus, "table" means "he/she/they sent thing," referring to the fact that before you can have a table, you must first send the wood ("he/she") to the people who work at the wood prepping shop ("they") and then to the carpenter ("he/she") before the wood ("he/she") can become a table. This is where we get the word for "table."

Jason writes

Oh, don't forget שֻׁלְחָן where שׁ-הוּא-לח-הֵן gives us the root "sent" with the infixes that mean "he/she" and "they" all together. Thus, "table" means "he/she/they sent thing," referring to the fact that before you can have a table, you must first send the wood ("he/she") to the people who work at the wood prepping shop ("they") and then to the carpenter ("he/she") before the wood ("he/she") can become a table. This is where we get the word for "table."

שֻׁלְחָן = ש-הוּא-לח-אַן is a noun not a verb and hence there are no actors (carpenters, emissaries, wood carriers, etc.) involved. It is of the root שלח, 'spread', and with the internal PP הוּא standing for the table itself, and so the closing PP אַן.
Related to it is the word צַלַּחַת = צלח-את, 'plate', with the closing PP את referring to the thing itself. In the verbal form צָלַחּתְּ = צלח-את the closing PP את is for the performer of the act צלח.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Isaac Fried wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 7:25 pm Jason writes

Oh, don't forget שֻׁלְחָן where שׁ-הוּא-לח-הֵן gives us the root "sent" with the infixes that mean "he/she" and "they" all together. Thus, "table" means "he/she/they sent thing," referring to the fact that before you can have a table, you must first send the wood ("he/she") to the people who work at the wood prepping shop ("they") and then to the carpenter ("he/she") before the wood ("he/she") can become a table. This is where we get the word for "table."

שֻׁלְחָן = ש-הוּא-לח-אַן is a noun not a verb and hence there are no actors (carpenters, emissaries, wood carriers, etc.) involved. It is of the root שלח, 'spread', and with the internal PP הוּא standing for the table itself, and so the closing PP אַן.
Related to it is the word צַלַּחַת = צלח-את, 'plate', with the closing PP את referring to the thing itself. In the verbal form צָלַחּתְּ = צלח-את the closing PP את is for the performer of the act צלח.

I was seriously joking. I never imagined you'd take it that far.

I notice that in Gen. 41:23
וְהִנֵּה שֶׁבַע שִׁבֳּלִים צְנֻמוֹת דַּקּוֹת שְׁדֻפוֹת קָדִים
it is שְׁדֻפוֹת in כתיב חסר with a qubuts, but in Gen. 41:6
וְהִנֵּה שֶׁבַע שִׁבֳּלִים דַּקּוֹת וּשְׁדוּפֹת קָדִים
it is וּשְׁדוּפֹת in כתיב מלא with a shuruq, and hence the absence of a dagesh in the letter פ of both שְׁדֻפוֹת and וּשְׁדוּפֹת.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com