# מלאה טעויות



## hadronic

Hello,

I find this construct quite strange : מלאה טעויות.
Shouldn't it be : מלאת טעויות ? Like in יפת שער (adjectival construct).


----------



## scriptum

hadronic said:


> Hello,
> 
> I find this construct quite strange : מלאה טעויות.
> Shouldn't it be : מלאת טעויות ? Like in יפת שער (adjectival construct).


מלאה טעויות
מלאה בטעויות
מלאת טעויות
All the three are correct.
Historically, מלא is a participle. So מלא טעויות may be considered either as a construct state or as a verb with a complement.


----------



## hadronic

Thank you.

Ok for the participle argument, but as such, this verb is supposed to be intransitive, it shouldn't accept any direct object... מלא as a transitive verb means "to fill", and not "to be full with".


----------



## scriptum

hadronic said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Ok for the participle argument, but as such, this verb is supposed to be intransitive, it shouldn't accept any direct object... מלא as a transitive verb means "to fill", and not "to be full with".


In the Bible, מלא (qal) means both _to fill_ and _to be full_.
In the modern language מלא (qal) meaning "to be full" exists only as a participle. "To fill" is expressed by מילא (pi'el).
But NB:
מלאו לו עשרים שנה = il a vingt ans accomplis
In this context the verb appears in all the tenses.


----------



## hadronic

Ok, but still, I can hardly see how מלא as intransitive meaning "to be full" can accept direct objects...


----------



## scriptum

hadronic said:


> Ok, but still, I can hardly see how מלא as intransitive meaning "to be full" can accept direct objects...


There is no such thing as intransitive or transitive meaning. There are only transitive or intransitive verbs.
Think of such verbs as contenir, or renfermer, or comprendre. They are transitive, and their meaning is very close to מלא...


----------



## hadronic

I meant : "I can hardly see how מלא as an instransitive verb (meaning  "to be full") could accept direct objects".
Actually, my dictionary does say that this מלא is intransitive.


----------



## scriptum

hadronic said:


> Actually, my dictionary does say that this מלא is intransitive.


I am afraid your dictionary is wrong - at least with regard to the language of the Bible.
Cf. פרו ורבו ומִלְאוּ את הארץ (Gen 9, 1) = to fill
מָלְאָה הארץ דעה (Is 11, 9) = to be full of


----------



## hadronic

Your second example is actually the one given by Even-Shoshan, but strikingly enough, it's still said that this verbe is פ"ע, ie, intransitive...

I found a whole part on that matter in Genesius 117z. He says those verbs are transitive...


----------



## scriptum

hadronic said:


> Your second example is actually the one given by Even-Shoshan, but strikingly enough, it's still said that this verbe is פ"ע, ie, intransitive...
> 
> I found a whole part on that matter in Genesius 117z. He says those verbs are transitive...


Well, on the second thought, I humbly admit I was mistaken. The verb מלא is a part of a group of verbs (called verba copiae by Gesenius) that are followed directly by a noun; still, these verbs cannot be regarded as transitive, since the noun seems to never be preceded by the particle את.
Examples:
שרץ צפרדעים
התכסה שלג
שבע לחם
נוזל מים
שותת דם
etc.
Yes, Gesenius calls them transitive, but it's some special kind of transitiveness.
Anyway, going back to your initial question, מלא טעויות seems to be quite a normal way to use verbs that denote a state, not an action. Let's hope someone will come up with a more elegant explanation...


----------

