Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] niph'al

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: "<pporta AT oham.net>" <pporta AT oham.net>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] niph'al
  • Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:31:27 -0400

Pere,

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 adjective.
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 www.oham.net/out/PS-d/PS-d1759.html)

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
of
town."

_______

Yes, Karl.
From an English viewpoint this is as you write. But from a Hebrew viewpoint
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 exists.

Warm greetings!

Pere Porta

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page