PDA

View Full Version : On וַתָּבוֹא of Eze 22:4



Yaku Lee
10-28-2011, 06:53 PM
A simple question.

The analysis window of BW9 says: בוא verb qal waw consec imperfect 2nd person feminine singular for וַתָּבוֹאof Eze 22:4. Isnít it 3rd person feminine singular (or 2nd person masculine singular)? Thanks.

Mark Eddy
10-31-2011, 04:53 PM
A simple question.

The analysis window of BW9 says: בוא verb qal waw consec imperfect 2nd person feminine singular for וַתָּבוֹאof Eze 22:4. Isn’t it 3rd person feminine singular (or 2nd person masculine singular)? Thanks.
You are correct about the form. If the form were to be 2nd person feminine, it should end with a yod. However, all the other verbs in the verse up to this point are 2nd person feminine, referring to the "city" of the previous verse. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar lists this verse as an exception in which the 2nd person feminine lacks the yod. So WTM either follows Gesenius' opinion, or it assumes that there is an inadvertent omission of the yod in the text at this point. I have seen WTM do this sort of thing elsewhere, especially if English translations translate the word in question as a different person from the given form.
In this case the translations do just that: e.g. " you have brought your day near and have come to your years" (NAU), with you being the feminine "city" of v. 3.
However, the subject for this verb could be masculine "days" (but in the WTT this is plural, not singular, as in the translations). In this case it would be translated something like "you have brought your day near, and it has come to your years" (whatever that might mean).
Or, as NRSV takes it, the word following this verb could be a masculine singular noun 'ed(changing the vowel pointing), which would allow you to read the verb as 3rd person ("you have brought your day near, the appointed time of your years has come."), but then the verb should be masculine, not feminine.
So, since none of the options accept the text exactly as it is, and still follow the "normal" Hebrew spelling, it makes sense for WTM to assign the label it did.
Mark Eddy

Yaku Lee
10-31-2011, 10:23 PM
Thank you very much for your help.

SkipB
11-01-2011, 11:32 AM
The form has a comment in the masoretic notes in the margin. Seems to indicate that feminine is spelled this way, 10 times. but then it seems to say "written plene in the prophets" There is a textual note comparing LXX and Vulgate and the conclusion is it should be construed with the final yodh.