Question of a determination of a Hebrew verb in 1QIsa^a

Page 1 of 1 (10 items)
This post has 9 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 215
Simon | Forum Activity | Posted: Mon, Jul 28 2014 5:26 AM

In 1QIsa^a, in Is. 42:3, there is a reading:  יכבה.

Logos has determines this verb as: Verb, Piel, Active, preterite, singualr, masculine, 3rd person. With as suffix: 3 sing. feminine.

I can't see how this determination of this verb is correct. Can someone please help me with a better determination?

Posts 164
Niko | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 28 2014 6:11 AM

I shoudn't say anything, because I haven't read nor studied the text, but by seeing the form and morphological tagging, it seems like the tagger has analyzed the non-energetic form as

yechabbeehaa (can't somehow type hebrew into this post)??

Anchor Yale commentary note says:

1QIsaa has ykbh without suffix, probably correctly.

Posts 215
Simon | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 28 2014 7:01 AM

In my opinion it's a Qal or a Piel without a suffix.

Posts 2589
Lee | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 28 2014 7:04 AM

Haven't looked at it myself. But you won't find a database anywhere that is free from disputable parsings. Smile

Posts 1416
HJ. van der Wal | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 28 2014 8:07 AM

Niko:

it seems like the tagger has analyzed the non-energetic form as

yechabbeehaa (can't somehow type hebrew into this post)??

Anchor Yale commentary note says:

1QIsaa has ykbh without suffix, probably correctly.

WBC says:

MT יכבנה “he will put it out.” DSSIsa יכבה omits the suff, parallel to ישבור “shatter” before.

Posts 468
BKMitchell | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 29 2014 2:38 AM

Simon:

I can't see how this determination of this verb is correct. Can someone please help me with a better determination?

Okay, how about this:

יכבה Verb, Qal, Active, Prefixed (imperfect), singular, masculine, third person

חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי

Posts 164
Niko | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 29 2014 3:18 AM

Isn't the meaning of the qal intransitive? So piel?

Posts 215
Simon | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 29 2014 3:27 AM

Niko:

Isn't the meaning of the qal intransitive? So piel?

Piel 3 sing. masculine (with no suffix) would be my guess too.

Thanks to everyone in this topic for helping me out.

Posts 1416
HJ. van der Wal | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 29 2014 3:38 AM

Simon:

Piel 3 sing. masculine (with no suffix) would be my guess too.

I think that's a very educated guess. Smile

LXX: καὶ λίνον καπνιζόμενον οὐ σβέσει

Targum Jonathan: וְחַשִיכַיָא דִכבֹוצִין עָמֵי לָא יְטַפֵי

Posts 468
BKMitchell | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 29 2014 4:47 PM

The form we have in the Qumran text of Isaiah יכבה could be pointed this way יִכְבֶּה and if pointed that way would be the same form we find in 1 Sam 3:4 which could be a Qal?  

But, I guess I see what you are saying.The MT of  Isaiah  42:3  has יְכַבֶּ֑נָּה  (a piel/yiqtol imperfect) which might be also be similar to the hypothetical יְכַב? Which might be what the Qumran text was meant to have. And represents a form that actually is used by Moses Ibn Ezra here (link):

כַּבֵּה חֲמַת הַכּוֹס בְּמֵי-שֶׁלֶג \ מַשְׁקֶה כמוֹ חָכָם יְכַב קָצֶף 

נִרְאָה עֲלֵי פָּנָיו בְּעֵת הוּרַק \ בּוֹ מִשְּׂפַת בַּקְבֻּק כְּמוֹ-קָצֶף.

 

חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי

Page 1 of 1 (10 items) | RSS