# Classical Hebrew: passive of qal



## Aleppan

Someone said that in 

כׇּֽל־הַנֹּגֵ֡עַ בְּמֵ֣ת בְּנֶ֩פֶשׁ֩ הָאָדָ֨ם אֲשֶׁר־יָמ֜וּת וְלֹ֣א יִתְחַטָּ֗א אֶת־מִשְׁכַּ֤ן יְהֹוָה֙ טִמֵּ֔א וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵ֑ל כִּי֩ מֵ֨י נִדָּ֜ה לֹא־זֹרַ֤ק עָלָיו֙ טָמֵ֣א יִהְיֶ֔ה ע֖וֹד טֻמְאָת֥וֹ בֽוֹ׃

the verb זֹרַ֤ק is a qal passive verb (past tense). How do you distinguish qal passives from pi'el passives? They look identical in the both the past and present!


----------



## Drink

First of all, let me clarify, the verbs that are believed to be qal passives are identical to pi'el passives _only in the suffix conjugation_ (which is what I believe you meant by "past"). In the _prefix conjugation_, the qal passives are instead identical to hif'il passives.

The reason for this is is separate for each tense, but first I'll emphasize that the qal passive in Hebrew is a marginal relic form that survives only in a few instances. For this reason, Hebrew grammarians never acknowledged its existence before modern times. The suffix conjugation forms were seen simply as pu'al forms, and the prefix conjugation forms were seen simply as huf'al forms.

- In the prefix conjugation, the forms were always identical to the hif'il passive to begin with. This is the case even in Arabic (e.g. yuktabu is the passive of both kataba and ’aktaba).
- In the suffix conjugation, the qal passive has become completely assimilated to the form of the pi'el passive. While formerly the qal passive lacked gemination, while the pi'el passive was geminated, this distinction went away sometime after the qal passive became marginalized. So the reason they cannot be distinguished is because they converged together.

So the only way to distinguish qal passive is not morphological, but lexical. If you have a verb that is found in the form of the qal when it is active, in the form of the pu'al when it is passive in the suffix conjugation, and in the form of the huf'al when it is passive in the prefix conjugation, then it is likely you have a qal passive.


----------



## Ali Smith

Let me add that in

כׇּֽל־הַנֹּגֵ֡עַ בְּמֵ֣ת בְּנֶ֩פֶשׁ֩ הָאָדָ֨ם אֲשֶׁר־יָמ֜וּת וְלֹ֣א יִתְחַטָּ֗א אֶת־מִשְׁכַּ֤ן יְהֹוָה֙ טִמֵּ֔א וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵ֑ל כִּי֩ מֵ֨י נִדָּ֜ה לֹא־זֹרַ֤ק עָלָיו֙ טָמֵ֣א יִהְיֶ֔ה ע֖וֹד טֻמְאָת֥וֹ בֽוֹ׃
(במדבר יט יג)

the verb זֹרַק is almost certainly verb 3m.s. SC Qal passive זרק 'to be sprinkled'/'it was sprinkled' for the simple reason that there is a corresponding Qal active verb that means 'to sprinkle' but no corresponding Piel verb that means 'to sprinkle'.


----------



## Abaye

אדם לעמל יולד – על הסביל הפנימי של בניין קל - האקדמיה ללשון העברית


----------



## risotto

But the dictionaries say it's from pu'al.


----------



## Abaye

> like their medieval counterparts, no two modern scholars seem to agree entirely on which verbs should be construed as passive qal verbs.


The Passive Qal in the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period, especially as Found in the Wisdom of Ben Sira, p. 1135, and see footnote 10 on the next page.


----------



## 𒍝𒊑𒈾 𒂵𒉿𒀉

The verb כָרַּת in וּמוֹלְדוֹתַיִךְ בְּיוֹם הוּלֶּדֶת אֹתָךְ לֹא כָרַּת שָׁרֵּךְ וּבְמַיִם לֹא רֻחַצְתְּ לְמִשְׁעִי וְהָמְלֵחַ לֹא הֻמְלַחַתְּ וְהָחְתֵּל לֹא חֻתָּלְתְּ. seems to be a qal passive because how else would you account for the daghesh in the ר?


----------



## Ali Smith

𒍝𒊑𒈾 𒂵𒉿𒀉 said:


> The verb כָרַּת in וּמוֹלְדוֹתַיִךְ בְּיוֹם הוּלֶּדֶת אֹתָךְ לֹא כָרַּת שָׁרֵּךְ וּבְמַיִם לֹא רֻחַצְתְּ לְמִשְׁעִי וְהָמְלֵחַ לֹא הֻמְלַחַתְּ וְהָחְתֵּל לֹא חֻתָּלְתְּ. seems to be a qal passive because how else would you account for the daghesh in the ר?


While it is very strange indeed for a ר to have a דגש, it has no bearing on whether כָרַּת is the passive of the Qal binyan or the Piel binyan. Morphologically, it could be either, but it is almost certainly the passive of the former for the simple reason that this root is not used in the Piel. Furthermore, כָרַּת means "was cut", and the same root letters in the Qal active binyan mean "to cut".


----------



## Drink

For discussion of theories explaining the dagesh in the resh, see Prof. Geoffrey Khan's book on Tiberian Hebrew. It's available for free online on the publisher's website (though the reading experience is inferior to that of a printed copy, especially with regard to Hebrew text and other special characters).


----------



## Abaye

We saw in a thread few weeks ago that "dagesh" in unexpected locations may a clue of irregular reading rather than true dagesh.


----------



## Drink

Apparently in some cases it can also be a way of ensuring that readers emphasize consonant that is in danger of being dropped or mispronounced.


----------



## Ali Smith

Ali Smith said:


> Let me add that in
> 
> כׇּֽל־הַנֹּגֵ֡עַ בְּמֵ֣ת בְּנֶ֩פֶשׁ֩ הָאָדָ֨ם אֲשֶׁר־יָמ֜וּת וְלֹ֣א יִתְחַטָּ֗א אֶת־מִשְׁכַּ֤ן יְהֹוָה֙ טִמֵּ֔א וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵ֑ל כִּי֩ מֵ֨י נִדָּ֜ה לֹא־זֹרַ֤ק עָלָיו֙ טָמֵ֣א יִהְיֶ֔ה ע֖וֹד טֻמְאָת֥וֹ בֽוֹ׃
> (במדבר יט יג)
> 
> the verb זֹרַק is almost certainly verb 3m.s. SC Qal passive זרק 'to be sprinkled'/'it was sprinkled' for the simple reason that there is a corresponding Qal active verb that means 'to sprinkle' but no corresponding Piel verb that means 'to sprinkle'.


On second thought, זֹרַק is probably 3m.s. SC Pual זרק 'to be sprinkled'/'it was sprinkled'. Because Qal passives are so rare, we should only resort to parsing as Qal passive when required to do so—which is not the case here—ḥolem is unexpected of /u/ in an open pretonic syllable, especially perhaps in the verbal system, whereas it is expected if the /ʿ/ were historically geminated. The absence of an attested Piel is not a (theoretical) problem because the biblical Hebrew corpus is so small—any number of forms may have existed in one form or another of preexilic Hebrew that never made it into the relatively few texts that were redacted in the postexilic period and have survived.


----------



## 𒍝𒊑𒈾 𒂵𒉿𒀉

No, it's definitely a qal passive. Just look at its vowels.


----------



## Drink

𒍝𒊑𒈾 𒂵𒉿𒀉 said:


> No, it's definitely a qal passive. Just look at its vowels.


The vowels are exactly the same whether it is a qal passive or a pi'el passive (pu'al).


----------



## 𒍝𒊑𒈾 𒂵𒉿𒀉

Drink said:


> The vowels are exactly the same whether it is a qal passive or a pi'el passive (pu'al).


No, a qal passive would have no reason to have a dagesh in the middle radical.


----------



## Drink

𒍝𒊑𒈾 𒂵𒉿𒀉 said:


> No, a qal passive would have no reason to have a dagesh in the middle radical.


And yet, they do...


----------

