Pere: Thank you.
After asking the question, and receiving your quick answer, I have come across other examples where it is no question that “save” is meant, but the waw demanded by the verbal paradigm lists is missing. More “First year lies”? ;-) I see a change in the way I am reading the text, thanks largely to the influence of this group: I am paying more attention to the exact form being used and less sliding over just because of the context. Hence some of my questions. Or in these forms, do they signal a different binyan than those including the waw? Thanks again. Karl W. Randolph. On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Pere Porta <[email protected]> wrote: > Karl, > neither different roots nor copyst errors. > > (By the way, are you sure of the use of "haburim"?.Maybe you meant > "habErim"? (See in Jdg 20:11) > > The problem you raise is that of the well known "short - long" or "haser - > male'" (or whatever you may call it) in the biblical text. > > (Remark: Jr 46:27 does not exist, Karl. Jr 46 consists of 18 verses) > > Now, > --why M and not MW in the Hiph'il Participle? > --why T and not TW in the Hiph'il imperfect? > > > Remark that in the Tanakh both forms are used for this binyan. > And so, > > -M ----------------- משיע in 2Sa 22:42 > -MW -------------- מושיע in Is 43:11 > > -T ---------------- תסף in Ex 11:6 > -TW ------------- תוסיף in Jb 20:9 > > This is a widely known behaviour or feature of the biblical script, Karl. > > Do you agree? > > Regards from > > Pere Porta > (Barcelona, Catalonia, Northeastern Spain) > > > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
