if at math.bu.edu
Tue Apr 8 13:31:27 EDT 2008
Your examples of Joel 1:18 and Ezekiel 16:7 are good.
You are right that the Hebrew grammarians do not tabulate a Niph'al
for RUC, yet on a theoretical level I can not see how an act such as
RUC can not have a "real" binyan Niph'al, or that it "lacks" a
Niph'al. Is there something inherently wrong with NA-ROC-U?
Niph'al is being occasionally used now in place of Hitpael. I often
hear NE-(EMAD for the voluntary HE-(EMID )ET (ACMO, 'planted
himself'. The form HIT-(AMED is shunned, possibly to avoid confusion
with HIT-(AMET, 'confronted, clashed', but HIT-YA$EB, 'sat down', is
considered very fine in place of NO$AB, which is used now as an
To continue in the same theoretical vein: the inherently involuntary
act NAPAL, 'fell', is in qal, the N being radical, but it is actually
of a niph'al sense (origin?), and for this reason, I think, we never
hear NIPAL, which is listed!.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Apr 7, 2008, at 12:12 AM, <pporta at oham.net> <pporta at oham.net> wrote:
> The acts RUC, KUM, SUR, $UB appear to be inherently voluntary [as
> opposed to NI-RDAM, 'fell asleep' and the corresponding NE-(OR,
> 'woke up, bestirred', as in Zechariah 2:17] and hence a Niph'al
> form is not listed for them. The roots SUG, 'deviate, recede', MUG,
> 'melt away, dissolve', PUC, 'disperse', RUM, 'lift', are listed in
> the Hebrew grammar books as "having" a Niph'al form, so I do not
> see why RUC should not have it.
> If the Niph'al form of MUG is NA-MOG, of PUC is NA-POC, 'became
> dispersed', and of RUM is NA-ROM, why not RUC -> NA-ROC. The NA-MOG-
> U KOL YO$BEI KNA(AN of exodus 15:15 could equally well have been NA-
> SOG-U KOL YO$BEI KNA(AN or NA-POC-U KOL YO$BEI KNA(AN or NA-ROC-U
> KOL YO$BEI KNA(AN, 'dispersed are all the inhabitants of Kna(an'.
> I agree that in the Bible itself some intransitive verbs ayin-waw
> are used in Niph'al.
> Examples: in Joel 1:18; Is 1:4 and Ez 16:7 (all of them pattern
> But I realize that as regards RWC, to run, none of the dictionaries
> nor lexicons I have at hand lists its Niph'al as an existing and
> real binyan.
> Then maybe our NAROC would be a Niph'al form (thus an exception to
> the general fact that RWC lacks Niph'al)?
> Pere Porta
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
> On Apr 5, 2008, at 12:18 AM, <pporta at oham.net> wrote:
>>>> As regards "to run"... are you sure that it is one of them?
>>>> If yes, do you think that:
>>>> 1. I run 20 miles every week -- is intransitive use
>>>> 2. I cannot run this program -- is transitive use?
>>> Correct on both. Or another example, "The snake oil salesman was
>>> run out
>> Yes, Karl.
>>> From an English viewpoint this is as you write. But from a Hebrew
>> it is wrong.
>> The Hebrew view of the sentence is:
>> "The snake oil salesman was caused to run out of the town"
>> Namely, the Huph'al and not the Niph'al of "run".
>> I mean: the right word --if we should to translate the sentence into
>> Hebrew-- would not the Niph'al of RWC, but the Huph'al of RWC.
>> Look at B.2
>> in www.oham.net/out/P-d/P-d083.html
>> and remark the examples taken from the Bible.
>> I suggest you to take advice whether the Niph'al of RWC really
>> Warm greetings!
>> Pere Porta
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew