# אֻכָּֽל



## Ali Smith

שלום!

וּמֹשֶׁ֗ה הָיָ֥ה רֹעֶ֛ה אֶת־צֹ֛אן יִתְרֹ֥ו חֹתְנֹ֖ו כֹּהֵ֣ן מִדְיָ֑ן וַיִּנְהַ֤ג אֶת־הַצֹּאן֙ אַחַ֣ר הַמִּדְבָּ֔ר וַיָּבֹ֛א אֶל־הַ֥ר הָאֱלֹהִ֖ים חֹרֵֽ
וַ֠יֵּרָא  מַלְאַ֨ךְ  יְהֹוָ֥ה  אֵלָ֛יו  בְּלַבַּת־  אֵ֖שׁ  מִתֹּ֣וךְ  הַסְּנֶ֑ה  וַיַּ֗רְא  וְהִנֵּ֤ה  הַסְּנֶה֙  בֹּעֵ֣ר  בָּאֵ֔שׁ  וְהַסְּנֶ֖ה  אֵינֶ֥נּוּ  אֻכָּֽל

Could someone tell me what kind of noun/adjective/whatever אֻכָּֽל is? It's from א-כ-ל, of course, but if it's the passive participle from קל why isn't it of the form אָכוּל‎?

תודה!


----------



## Drink

It's a pu'al participle form (i.e. a passive participle form of pi'el). Sometimes this form is found without the usual מ prefix. Not sure whether it's best to see it as a participle or as a derived adjective.


----------



## Abaye

Such form appears several times in the bible, for example:
אִם תִּרְאֶה אֹתִי לֻקָּח מֵאִתָּךְ
מַה נַּעֲשֶׂה לַנַּעַר הַיּוּלָּד
כָּהֵם יוּקָשִׁים בְּנֵי הָאָדָם
שֵׁן רֹעָה וְרֶגֶל מוּעָדֶת

Seems that there are no more:


> ארבע מלות במקרא, ואין להם חמישית, שהם על משקל 'פּוּעלים' והם פעולים; ואלה הם: "והסנה איננו אוכל" (שמ' ג , ב); "אם תראה אותי לקח" (מ"ב ב , י); "ורגל מועדת" (מש' כה , יט); כהם יוקשים. והוסיף רבי יונה נשמתו עדן (רקמה ע' שכה) מלה חמישית, והיא "לנער היולד" (שו' יג , ח).


תנ"ך - מקראות גדולות הכתר - קהלת פרק ט פסוק יב


----------



## bazq

I believe these are analyzed most often as passive participles of qal actually. Or at least as attested remnants of it (the internal passive of qal). It presumably fell out of use/underwent reanalysis due to the similarity with pu'al, the internal passive of pi'el.


----------



## amikama

According to the Academy of the Hebrew Language it's the internal passive of binyan qal.
אדם לעמל יולד – על הסביל הפנימי של בניין קל - האקדמיה ללשון העברית


----------



## Drink

It's strange, because the internal passive participle of qal _is_ אכול... It's the only part of the internal passive that remained in regular use.

I had thought these forms were connected with the later phenomenon of having pu'al participles without the מ prefix. This appears in many Mishnaic terms (for example, שותפים instead of משותפים).

But it is telling here that the examples from the Bible are all from qal verbs. So perhaps these phenomena are entirely unconnected.


----------



## Abaye

In contrary to what I wrote above, there are more than 5 examples, as appears in @amikama's link to the Academia.


----------



## Drink

Abaye said:


> In contrary to what I wrote above, there are more than 5 examples, as appears in @amikama's link to the Academia.



I think you are confusing the participles with the other forms. The Academy article does not, as far as I can see, give any other examples of participles like this, we're still left with just those five. The others are finite forms, which are relatively well understood, and there are plenty of examples.


----------



## Abaye

No confusion. The Academy gives us examples of the original passive qal, some are past tense (perfect), some are present tense (participle), some are future tense (imperfect). This establishes the details of this nearly lost form with its tenses, genders, pluralities, or as they phrase it:  לסביל הפנימי של בניין קל הייתה כמובן נטייה מלאה. This is very relevant for explaining אֻכָּֽל.


----------



## Drink

Abaye said:


> No confusion. The Academy gives us examples of the original passive qal, some are past tense (perfect), some are present tense (participle), some are future tense (imperfect). This establishes the details of this nearly lost form with its tenses, genders, pluralities, or as they phrase it:  לסביל הפנימי של בניין קל הייתה כמובן נטייה מלאה. This is very relevant for explaining אֻכָּֽל.



So what participle forms were listed in the article other than the five we have? I skimmed through the article and only found that they give אֻכָּל and לֻקָּח, which are of those five examples we already had.


----------



## Abaye

Participle is not the entire universe. In order to understand this archaic form perfect and imperfect examples are also needed.


----------



## Drink

Abaye said:


> Participle is not the entire universe. In order to understand this archaic form perfect and imperfect examples are also needed.



Yes, but like I said, those are well understood already, and much more numerous. It's the participle that is puzzling. Because the qal internal passive participle is actually the אכול form itself, which is the only part of the internal passive of qal that remained in common use.


----------

