Julia Falling Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I am trying to find all the Qal Perfect 2fs verbs that have a pronominal suffix. Here is how I set up the search (the terms are in the search box in the order shown below) – [sUFFIX pronominal] [VERB qal perfect second feminine singular] I got 7 hits. Pratico & Van Pelt say that there are 16 of them (pg 227 of their book at the bottom). What did I do incorrectly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Gilbert Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Hi Julia, The Construct returns six. Not sure why there is a discrepancy. Regards, Michel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Gilbert Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Do they give the references? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia Falling Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) Thanks, Michel. My search also picked up the bracketed word in Jer 2:27. Otherwise our results are identical. I'm new to Hebrew and Hebrew searches – very different from Greek! As a result, I tend to be pretty uncertain about how to go about finding what I'm looking for. Now I'm wondering why Pratico and Van Pelt have 16? The search we both did is not more limiting than the info given in the textbook: "Note, however, that the 2fs form of the Perfect conjugation with a pronominal suffix occurs only sixteen times in the Hebrew Bible." EDIT: No references. Edited January 25, 2017 by Julia Falling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Gilbert Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Actually, I'm new to these kinds of searches too. This is the first morphological search I've done in Accordance. I lent out my copy so thanks for checking. If they listed the verses, I thought it might help us solve this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia Falling Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) Pratico & Van Pelt was published in 2007. Accordance, as good as it was then, is, no doubt, much improved since then. Perhaps they had some false hits? EDIT: Nope. No false hits. I removed Qal from the search and got 16 hits! Edited January 25, 2017 by Julia Falling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I was wondering if one could relax the search so as to permit more results to appear (though perhaps slightly incorrect ones) and see if that sheds any light. I'm nowhere I can really do this right now, I'm afraid. Now I'm going to show my ignorance of Hebrew here, but P/V-P do not say "Qal perfect" just "Perfect". Is there any difference to be had by removing the "Qal" specifier ? Thx D 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Gilbert Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I just looked up all the Qal Perfect 2FS in Acc, 179 hits, and there are only 6 with pronominal suffixes. Perhaps it is a scribal error: they wrote 6 in their draft, someone read it as 16, and wrote that out in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia Falling Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 See my edited post above. If Qal is removed from the search (and that wasn't specified), I do get 16 hits. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Gilbert Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) Good catch Daniel and Julia. Julia specified Qal in her search above ("I am trying to find all the Qal Perfect 2fs verbs that have a pronominal suffix"), they didn't. I just assumed Julia was in the Qal section of their grammar. Edited January 25, 2017 by Michel Gilbert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia Falling Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) Michel – We are in the Qal section. That explains, but does not excuse, my error. I'm just happy to have it resolved. Edited January 25, 2017 by Julia Falling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Gilbert Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I like that it is resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Ok so I tried this all on the ETCBC data for comparison and have a small spanner to throw into the mix. First ETCBC requires a different construct because of the tagging. Second, it only gets 11 hits as against 15 in the HMT construct. Checking them out the cases in Josh 2:17, 2:20, Jer 2:27 and Song 5:9 are all tagged as masculine rather than feminine. ETCBC does not find any hits not known in HMT. Thx D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Gilbert Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Hi Daniel, The כְּתִיב is feminine in Jer 2,27 יְלִדְתִּני On Jer 2,27 and the other form, הִשְׁבַּעְתָּֽנוּ , see GKC 59h. I assume that in GKC's interpretation, the long vowel under the ת is because it is in pause, not because it is the 2MS perfect ending. Of course, context dictates the semantics of 2FS. It would be interesting to hear Dr. Holmstedt's opinion on this, whether they are masc or fem, or at least how he would tag them. Regards, Michel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Holmstedt Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 In my opinion, they are feminine with pausal (the silluq/sof pasuq) vocalization. It's similar to (though reversed, gender-wise) pausal masculine לָךְ (identical to feminine form) instead of contextual לְךָ. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Hi Michel, Robert, Sorry for not getting back yesterday - still finding my feet with ETCBC and was looking at another issue. Thanx for your comments. I need to do some follow up work (er.... like learn Hebrew ). If anything of interest turns up I'll let you know. Thx D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) Hi Robert, Michel, I have run the queries again in Shebanq and the results are consistent with the Accordance ETCBC module. Interestingly, Michel the reference you give to GKC notes all four of these cases. So I read up a bit on silluq/sof passuq, atnah and the 2s morphology for qal/hit. I can see how the confusion might have a arisen now. The funny one is Jer 2.27 where the qere has the qamats. You can see my other post on the qere/ketiv in the ETCBC (https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/20618-etcbc-ketiv-and-qere/?hl=%2Bketiv+%2Bqere) but in short the qere only are morph tagged and thus the it's the one that is found in the query. This case is also interesting because it is not followed by a sof pasuq. However it is apparently followed by a silluq. I also checked a translation (because I cannot read well enough yet) and it is apparently the case that all these are verbs with feminine subjects, to your point Michel about context. So I'm guessing these are tagging errors. Thanks to you both for your help here. Thx D Edited January 29, 2017 by דָנִיאֶל Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Holmstedt Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 For clarity, the Q/K in Jer 2:27 has not a silluq, but a zaqef qaton, which may also induce pausal forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Thank you for that - i noticed that but didn't know if that was significant, or not. I thought I identified a silluq in the following word : אַ֣תְּ יְלִדְתִּנִי [יְלִדְתָּ֔נוּ] כִּֽי־פָנ֥וּ but perhaps that is incorrect, or perhaps irrelevant. I still have to track down more details on exactly how the spelling is affected by these things. Reference seems to be made to a book by Andersen and Forbes "Spelling in the Hebrew Bible", but if you have other suggestions I'd be interested. I just see various notes in grammars saying that these things may affect spelling but often not exactly how, though some examples are given for a few common cases. Thx D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Holmstedt Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Nope, that is a meteg, which is not part of the cantillation system properly speaking. I suggest Israel Yeivin's Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Ok, great I'll get a copy. Thanx again. BTW, I have reported these cases to ETCBC to get them to check them over. Thx D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I received a note this morning telling me that the ETCBC data has now been corrected for the next release of the database. I don't know how long it will take for the data to flow through to all the various users but the corrections have been made. Many thanx for the help Robert and Michel on this. I learned a good bit in the process too. Thx D 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now