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

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Niko

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:

1QIsa^a has ykbh without suffix, probably correctly.

Simon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/612195#Comment_612195

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

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/612206#Comment_612206

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

HJ. van der Wal

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/612195#Comment_612195

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:

1QIsa^a 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.

BKMitchell

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

Niko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/612423#Comment_612423

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

Simon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/612426#Comment_612426

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.

HJ. van der Wal

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/612423#Comment_612423

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

I think that's a very educated guess. [:)]

[quote]

LXX: καὶ λίνον καπνιζόμενον οὐ σβέσει

Targum Jonathan: וְחַשִיכַיָא דִכבֹוצִין עָמֵי לָא יְטַפֵי

BKMitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/612429#Comment_612429

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.