{"title":"Biblical Aramaic Passive Stems","authors":"Emmanuel Mastéy","doi":"10.1163/17455227-bja10031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Perfect verbs in the Passive-Qal (qetil) and Hufʿal (huqtal or hoqtal) stems are attested in both Biblical (BA) and Middle Aramaic. This paper contests the claim of BA grammars that the Hufʿal imperfect is unattested in BA. Moreover, some scholars have doubted the authenticity of the Masoretic vocalisation of some Hufʿal and Passive-Qal occurrences, postulating that the Hufʿal preformative vowel was changed from a to u under the influence of the Hebrew Hufʿal. This paper discusses the most problematic occurrences from morphological, syntactic, and contextual viewpoints, and concludes that the Masoretic vocalisation of the forms in question is generally reliable. Lastly, a form that was mistakenly identified as a disguised Passive-Qal form is shown to be a Qal (active) form. It appears that the marking of human direct objects by lamed accusativi in BA has fewer exceptions than previously thought.","PeriodicalId":41594,"journal":{"name":"Aramaic Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aramaic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/17455227-bja10031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Perfect verbs in the Passive-Qal (qetil) and Hufʿal (huqtal or hoqtal) stems are attested in both Biblical (BA) and Middle Aramaic. This paper contests the claim of BA grammars that the Hufʿal imperfect is unattested in BA. Moreover, some scholars have doubted the authenticity of the Masoretic vocalisation of some Hufʿal and Passive-Qal occurrences, postulating that the Hufʿal preformative vowel was changed from a to u under the influence of the Hebrew Hufʿal. This paper discusses the most problematic occurrences from morphological, syntactic, and contextual viewpoints, and concludes that the Masoretic vocalisation of the forms in question is generally reliable. Lastly, a form that was mistakenly identified as a disguised Passive-Qal form is shown to be a Qal (active) form. It appears that the marking of human direct objects by lamed accusativi in BA has fewer exceptions than previously thought.
期刊介绍：
The journal brings all aspects of the various forms of Aramaic and their literatures together to help shape the field of Aramaic Studies. The journal, which has been the main platform for Targum and Peshitta Studies for some time, is now also the main outlet for the study of all Aramaic dialects, including the language and literatures of Old Aramaic, Achaemenid Aramaic, Palmyrene, Nabataean, Qumran Aramaic, Mandaic, Syriac, Rabbinic Aramaic, and Neo-Aramaic. Aramaic Studies seeks contributions of a linguistic, literary, exegetical or theological nature for any of the dialects and periods involved, from detailed grammatical work to narrative analysis, from short notes to fundamental research. Reviews, seminars, conference proceedings, and bibliographical surveys are also featured.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
