[b-hebrew] Piel and the Binyanim (Re: Verb Stem Confusion)
farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com
Mon Feb 9 23:30:57 EST 2009
To repeat the main point from my previous post: you have provided no
substantiation of your claim, nor interaction with the arguments of
Greenberg, Fehri, Kaufman, etc.
There are no infixed personal pronouns -- I've already demonstrated that
your pronominal theory here is wrong. You have not countered my
arguments -- other than saying that I've gotten too technical, or that
you don't understand linguistics, or that phonemics isn't a scientific
method (the latter point unsubstantiated by you).
> you can rest assured that the claim for intensity or repetitiveness for
> the Piel is, not only factually, but also inherently, baloney. The
> belief that $ABAR is for two pieces but $IBER is for many pieces, that
> QABAR is for one corpse but QIBER is for many corpses, that $ATAL is for
> one tree but $ITEL is for many trees, is an obvious fizzle. The
> "reduplication of the middle radical" is also in my opinion a linguistic
> fata morgana.
> Piel is a root augmented by to infixed personal pronouns for the actors,
> that's all. It is like the Hipil except in this latter binyan the first
> personal pronoun is prefixed.
> Present-day Hebrew makes great use of Piel to create verbs of shifted
> meaning, say, $ATAQ, 'kept quiet' versus $ITEQ, 'paralalyzed'. Indeed,
> in Jeremiah 12:13 QACAR is 'reaped', but in Psalms 102:24 QICER is 'cut
> Also, verbal forms out of foreign words: TILPEN out of telephone, FIXES
> out of fax, FIRMET out of format.
> Isaac Fried
> On Feb 9, 2009, at 5:12 PM, David Kummerow wrote:
>> We can hardly "rest assured" by your claim when a) you have provided no
>> substantiation of your claim, nor interaction with the arguments of
>> Greenberg, Fehri, Kaufman, etc.; and b) you have demonstrated consistent
>> linguistic incompetence in other areas and an unwillingness to learn
>> linguistic method. As such, your claims of "sheer nonsense" can simply
>> be dismissed.
>> Greenberg particularly has provided the typological background for
>> understanding the verbal form. Under such an analysis, the reduplication
>> of the middle radical is both predictable and explainable.
>> Of course, as I've stated previously, the verbal plurality function of
>> the Piel I take as one of its functions, with a
>> resultative/causative/estimative function of (generally) stative verbs
>> being its other main function, as Jenni and others have shown.
>> David Kummerow.
>>> You can rest assured that the the claim of intensity or repetition
>>> (RAKAD versus RIKED) for the Hebrew piel is sheer nonsense.
>>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>>> On Feb 9, 2009, at 7:37 AM, Peter Bekins wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the plug. For what it is worth, I personally disagree with
>>>> Goetze and lean towards the view that the doubling indicates
>>>> plurality as is common in Semitic (and non-Semitic) languages. This
>>>> was argued well by Joseph Greenberg (though I haven't put up a
>>>> summary of this paper yet):
>>>> Greenberg, Joseph H. “The Semitic ‘intensive’ as verbal plurality: a
>>>> study of grammaticalization. Pages 577-587 in Semitic studies in
>>>> honor of Wolf Leslau on the occasion of his eighty-fifth birthday.
>>>> Edited by Alan S Kaye. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1991.
>>>> I summarize Kouwenberg's study of the D-stem (piel) in Akkadian in
>>>> which he reaches the same conclusions:
>>>> Peter Bekins
>>>> On Feb 9, 2009, at 12:52 AM, b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org
>>>> <mailto:b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:
>>>>> Peter Bekins discusses one article on the Piel here:
>>>>> Also relevant is his discussion here:
>>>>> Yitzhak Sapir
More information about the b-hebrew