I have set HALOT to be my first search for Hebrew but when I select a word and lema it doesn't show in the list. My second priory "A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic ..." and all others show. How do I correct this?
You didn't say where and for what word this occurred so others of us could check it. That would be helpful. You also didn't say if this was a problem every time you chose a word or with just selected words.
Hebrew lexicons do not always list words with the same lexical form. Logos did some work to overcome this problem but occasionally it has trouble getting to the right entries. HALOT is more troublesome than others in my experience. Perhaps this is what is happening if you only occasionally run into this issue. Otherwise something else may be wrong.
I was doing a search on Psalm 23:1 the word "shepherd". I haven't tried to search anything else to see what happens.
Mark, this is intresting, I did Gen 1:1 "created" it did show up but not as first priority. I then tryes Gen 1:10 "God" in the last sentence ... "And God saw ..." and it didn't show up.
When I repeat your example from Genesis 1:10 I do get HALOT showing up. I also get my lexicons listed in the order in which they are prioritized. I'm not sure why you aren't getting the same result.
Did you get it when you looked at Psalm 23:1 "Shepherd"?
Yes I did:
Yes I got it and it is on the first position:
Check your priorities. Open the library and click on "prioritize." Perhaps you have another lexicon above HAL.
No I have HALOT as my first and then A Concise Hebrew ... in my prioritize list. When I do Psalm 23 "A Concise.." comes up first and HALOT doesn't come in the list.
I have Click Tricks but I don't know how to do a screen shot or I would show you my screen.
Try de-prioritizing the Concise Hebrew Lexicon (If you have the whole enchillada, why use the concise version). You can always put it back later.
I just noted that the morph tagging for רֹ֝עִ֗י here is as a qal part of רָעָה. I disagree. It is a noun and is listed as such by BDB. This is one of the times I'll go with BDB against Köhler-Baumgartner.
Actually "shepherd" here is not a noun it is a verb. I was checking to see if HALOT would have it as a noun or verb why i did this exercise, only to find out that HALOT doesn't come up in my search. I'll call Logos for help on my problem. However; I wonder if anyone else has found this intresting.
When "shepherd" is used as a verb the whole flow of Psalm 23 is very different! I did a study/ message about a year ago, before having logos, and the revelation shakes the foundation of how we as shepherd should act based on the Lord's example.
Actually "shepherd" here is not a noun it is a verb. I was checking to see if HALOT would have it as a noun or verb why i did this exercise
No, "shepherd" is definitely a noun. It is a non-verbal sentence. See
Miller, Cynthia L. Vol. 1, The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew : Linguistic Approaches. Linguistic studies in ancient West Semitic. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999.
regarding the verbless clause.
Actually "shepherd" here is not a noun it is a verb
According to the available morphologies, it is a participle--which is a noun (even though the root is a verb).
Logos morphology:
Westminster morphology:
Actually "shepherd" here is not a noun it is a verb According to the available morphologies, it is a participle--which is a noun (even though the root is a verb). Logos morphology: Westminster morphology:
The morphology in BHS is incorrect. It is a noun with 1 c sg suff.
So if we were to apply it in it's form what would we say?
The Lord is my Shepherd meaning one who keeps "a noun" or
The Lord is my shepherd meaning to feed, to give one self as food "verb"
George are you sure? In a third-heh noun, wouldn't the Heh be replaced by a tav - רָעָתִי.
Doesn't the holem tell us that this is the participial form?
Okay, I'm trying to learn this stuff - what would distinguish the participle from the noun?
The morphology in BHS is incorrect. It is a noun with 1 c sg suff. George are you sure? In a third-heh noun, wouldn't the Heh be replaced by a tav - רָעָתִי. Doesn't the holem tell us that this is the participial form?
Certainly not in this case above all. If the heh were replaced by a tau with hireq-yod as the pronominal suffix we would then see
The morphology in BHS is incorrect. It is a noun with 1 c sg suff. Okay, I'm trying to learn this stuff - what would distinguish the participle from the noun?
Usage
Certainly not in this case above all. If the heh were replaced by a tau with hireq-yod as the pronominal suffix we would then see רָעָתִי which would be "my evil."
which would be "my evil."
So it is. Don't know what I was thinking there.
How do you explain the Holem if not by the participial form?
Certainly not in this case above all. If the heh were replaced by a tau with hireq-yod as the pronominal suffix we would then see רָעָתִי which would be "my evil." So it is. Don't know what I was thinking there. How do you explain the Holem if not by the participial form?
It originates in the participial form, but is not used as a participle. Take English as an example.
I called an exterminator who is killing the bugs. Participle
Killing is generally discouraged. Noun.
Got it now George. I think.
The origin would be the participle, but it has been substantivised with usage. It has the same form as a participle but is, in fact a noun.
Thanks George. I was obviously writing my reply as you wrote yours.
It appears that the morphology is incorrect for this noun throughout the OT.
It originates in the participial form, but is not used as a participle. Take English as an example. I called an exterminator who is killing the bugs. Participle Killing is generally discouraged. Noun.
They are both participles in a sense (at least according to those in Oxford [:)]):
participle /pɑːˈtɪsɪp(ə)l/■ a word formed from a verb (e.g. going, gone, being, been) and used as an adjective or noun (as in burnt toast, good breeding) or used to make compound verb forms (is going, has been). Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
Perhaps that definition is too generous, but grammar has never been an exact science.
In English grammar, "Breeding" or "killing" is also known as a gerund in those usages, but they still use the present participial form. Perhaps that's why Logos morph has "pure noun particle" to make it clear since the form and the usage don't coincide.
I guess Hebrew grammar doesn't use the word "gerund" as English does (as I know no Hebrew)? (after checking wikipedia, I see that gerund means different things depending on the language)
In English grammar, "Breeding" or "killing" is also known as a gerund in those usages, but they still use the present participial form. Perhaps that's why Logos morph has "pure noun particle" to make it clear since the form and the usage don't coincide. I guess Hebrew grammar doesn't use the word "gerund" as English does (as I know no Hebrew)? (after checking wikipedia, I see that gerund means different things depending on the language)
As I stated, it is derived from the participle. Its usage, however, is that of a noun.
You're right, Hebrew doesn't use the word "gerund." It does, however use γερουσία. [זִקְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל] [;)]
Seems to me that we may be failing to distinguish between functional classification and morphological classification. Although I've been less than successful at finding a coherent list of functional parts of speech in Hebrew,
That's true enough though I am attempting to operate on a functional basis.
Well I have learn since I asked the original question. I am not a Hebrew student but it gets very interesting because this Psalm from my study is also filled with what is called imperfect verbs which makes the action continuous. As "shepherd" action: to feed, continues every things becomes fluid. Shall not want because we are continuously been shepherd "feed".
This begins to show us a different type of shepherd "noun" form what we know. It shows how we should allow ourselves to shepherd and how we should in turn shepherd.
what is called imperfect verbs which makes the action continuous.
Others may correct me as my Hebrew is nearly non-existent, but generally the perfect means "completed from the perspective of the speaker/writer" and imperfect means "incomplete or progressive from the perspective of the speaker/writer". The verb aspect is not from the perspective of the reader. I assume this holds for Hebrew as well.
I am attempting to operate on a functional basis.
That is what I assumed; to me "participle" is not a functional term ... never used it in a tree chart except at the morphological level.
what is called imperfect verbs which makes the action continuous. Others may correct me as my Hebrew is nearly non-existent, but generally the perfect means "completed from the perspective of the speaker/writer" and imperfect means "incomplete or progressive from the perspective of the speaker/writer". The verb aspect is not from the perspective of the reader. I assume this holds for Hebrew as well.
Your understanding is correct. I should note that this does not necessarily represent the way that the writer experienced any events but rather the manner in which he chooses to present them. It's like the case of the many jokes about an event in a bar where he begins with "a man went into a bar" then continues with "he says ..." It's not that we are to understand that the action is continuing but rather that he chooses the present tense to convey the impression of an ongoing dialogue.
