# Hebrew: Passive Binyan of Qal



## JAN SHAR

Did Hebrew used to have a binyan that was the passive of qal, and whose participle is of the form שָׁמוּר?

Thank you again


----------



## Drink

The theory is that it did. It fits with a lot of verbs that are found in the text that look like pu'al in the suffix conjugation, and look like huf'al in the prefix conjugation.

However, the passive participle is a much trickier question, as the participle of that binyan is believed to be of the sort in the verse והסנה איננו אכל (that is the qutal > quttal form). Where does that leave qatūl? I don't know.


----------



## Ali Smith

Here are two more examples of it:

יִ֣כֶל בְּשָׂר֣וֹ מֵרֹ֑אִי ושפי וְשֻׁפּ֥וּ עַ֝צְמֹתָ֗יו לֹ֣א רֻאּֽוּ׃
(איוב לג כא)

His flesh is consumed away from sight and his bones that were not seen stick out.


----------



## JAN SHAR

And also ויישם in וימת יוסף בן מאה ועשר שנים ויחנטו אתו ויישם בארון במצרים


----------



## Ali Smith

ויישם וַיּוּשַׂ֤ם לְפָנָיו֙ לֶאֱכֹ֔ל וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ לֹ֣א אֹכַ֔ל עַ֥ד אִם־דִּבַּ֖רְתִּי דְּבָרָ֑י וַיֹּ֖אמֶר דַּבֵּֽר׃
(בראשית כד לג)

And [food] was placed before him to eat but he said, "I will not eat until I have said what I have to say." And he said, "Speak."

This seems to be vb. 3m.s. PC pu'al י-שׂ-ם 'to place'/'it was placed', not qal passive י-שׂ-ם.

וַיָּ֣מׇת יוֹסֵ֔ף בֶּן־מֵאָ֥ה וָעֶ֖שֶׂר שָׁנִ֑ים וַיַּחַנְט֣וּ אֹת֔וֹ וַיִּ֥ישֶׂם בָּאָר֖וֹן בְּמִצְרָֽיִם׃
(בראשית נ כו)

And Joseph died at the age of one hundred and ten years, and they embalmed him and he was placed in the ark of the covenant in Egypt.

This seems to be vb. 3m.s. PC hof'al י-שׂ-ם 'to place'/'it was placed', not qal passive י-שׂ-ם.

I might add that in modern Hebrew, יִשֵּׂם means 'to implement', יֻשַּׂם means 'to be implemented', and יִשּׂוּם means 'implementation/application'.

Here's what Hebrew Wiktionary says:

לפי רוב החוקרים, האזכור היחידאי לכאורה במקרא יִּישֶׂם הוא טעות כתיבה,[3] מופיע באמת בניין הֻפְעַל של שִׂים, יושם במקום יישם: ”וַיּוּשַׂם (וַיִּישֶׂם) בָּאָרוֹן בְּמִצְרָיִם“ (בראשית נ, פסוק כו), בדומה ל ”ויישם [וַיּוּשַׂם] לְפָנָיו לֶאֱכֹל“ (בראשית כד, פסוק לג). גם ייתכן שהצורה יישם היא צורת נפעל של הפועל שָׂם עם וו-ההיפוך.[4]


----------



## Drink

In your first example, you meant to say huf'al as well, not pu'al.

It's important to note that the traditional Hebrew grammar school regards the prefix conjugation of the qal passive as belonging to huf'al (because the forms are identical) and its suffix conjugation as belonging to pu'al (because the forms are identical to it). So the fact that Hebrew Wiktionary identifies these examples as huf'al is not a proof that it's not a qal passive. In fact a huge consideration is the fact that this root is not typically used in the hif'il. Also note that the root is really the same as שׂים, the confusion is due to the fact that in the huf'al prefix conjugation, פ"י roots and ע"י roots are identical.


----------



## Ali Smith

Oh, I see. Thanks!

But then where did modern Hebrew יִשֵּׂם 'to implement', יֻשַּׂם 'to be implemented', and יִשּׂוּם 'implementation/application' come from?


----------



## Drink

Ali Smith said:


> Oh, I see. Thanks!
> 
> But then where did modern Hebrew יִשֵּׂם 'to implement', יֻשַּׂם 'to be implemented', and יִשּׂוּם 'implementation/application' come from?


New coinages based on this root.


----------



## Ali Smith

Why would they be based on the root י-שׂ-ם, which doesn't exist? You yourself stated that the root is actually שׂ-י-ם.


----------



## Drink

Because language is much more flexible than you seem to think.


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink said:


> In your first example, you meant to say huf'al as well, not pu'al.
> 
> It's important to note that the traditional Hebrew grammar school regards the prefix conjugation of the qal passive as belonging to huf'al (because the forms are identical) and its suffix conjugation as belonging to pu'al (because the forms are identical to it). So the fact that Hebrew Wiktionary identifies these examples as huf'al is not a proof that it's not a qal passive. In fact a huge consideration is the fact that this root is not typically used in the hif'il. Also note that the root is really the same as שׂים, the confusion is due to the fact that in the huf'al prefix conjugation, פ"י roots and ע"י roots are identical.


But if all of these are, in fact, qal passives, why did the second radical undergo gemination in every one of them? I don't think it happens anywhere else in the qal paradigm.


----------



## radagasty

Ali Smith said:


> But if all of these are, in fact, qal passives, why did the second radical undergo gemination in every one of them? I don't think it happens anywhere else in the qal paradigm.



How do you know that the second radical underwent gemination? MT pointing was added by the Masoretes, who did not recognise a passive Qal stem, and therefore pointed the Qal-passive forms as Pual or Niphal (and, on occasion, Hophal), whence the _dagesh forte_.

At any rate, in the case of the two particular examples being discussed here, _viz._ וַיּוּשַׂם and וַיִּישֶׂם, note that the MT actually has the consonantal skeleton ויישׂם on both occasions, a form that is quite perplexing. As Drink pointed out, the root שׂים is found exclusively in Qal (with 3 exceptions), which suggests that it does not exist in Hophal, and in any case, the expected Hophal form would be וַיּוּשַׂם, into which the Masoretes shoehorned the consonantal text by pointing it וַיֻּישַׂם. This leaves the Qal passive, which is suggested by their sense, but it is difficult to explain how the Qal passive should have such a form. Interestingly, the Septuagint rendered both these forms in the active voice, as ‹καὶ παρέθηκεν› and ‹καὶ ἔθηκαν› respectively.


----------



## Drink

radagasty said:


> This leaves the Qal passive, which is suggested by their sense, but it is difficult to explain how the Qal passive should have such a form.



What form would you have expected for the qal passive of a hollow root?


----------



## radagasty

Drink said:


> What form would you have expected for the qal passive of a hollow root?



Good question! Just instinctively, if you put me on the spot, I would say יוּשַׂם, which happens to be identical to the Hophal. I need to think a little more carefully about this, though, whether יִישַׂם might have come about by analogy to ע"י roots.


----------



## Ali Smith

Here's another place where you can't tell whether the verb is from the pu'al binyan or the qal passive binyan:

אַ֣ף בַּל־נִטָּ֗עוּ אַ֚ף בַּל־זֹרָ֔עוּ אַ֛ף בַּל־שֹׁרֵ֥שׁ בָּאָ֖רֶץ גִּזְעָ֑ם וְגַם־נָשַׁ֤ף בָּהֶם֙ וַיִּבָ֔שׁוּ וּסְעָרָ֖ה כַּקַּ֥שׁ תִּשָּׂאֵֽם׃
(ישעיהו מ כד)

They are barely planted, they are barely sown, their stock barely takes root in the earth when He blows on them and they become dry and the whirlwind lifts them up like stubble.

These two verbs could be from either binyan.


----------

