[b-hebrew] Boring grammar again

kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Fri May 6 17:07:09 EDT 2005


@Karl:

I had the very same question of trying to figure out the difference between Piel's and Hiphils.  And the best answer I found was in " A Guide To Biblical Hebrew Syntax."   It explains that the difference between Piels and Hiphils as the difference between the imposition of a state (adjectival) and the imposition of a process (verbal).

So for example if you take Hayah which means to be alive in the qal, the Piel is to cause to be alive, and the Hiphil is to cause to live.  The distinction is between causing to be something or do something.

So to sum it up the Piel causative focuses on bringing about a state, whearas the Hiphil causative expresses the cause of an action.

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> To All: 
> 
> At the risk of sounding stupid or just unable to learn, here is a question that 
> is bugging me, what exactly is the Piel? I’ve brought it up before: either I am 
> too stupid to understand the answers that several of you put forward, or I found 
> that there is still some contradiction from the answers I got. 
> 
> Back in Hebrew 101, the only class I took, I was taught that there was Qal, 
> simple active, with Niphal as its passive, Piel as intensive Qal with Pual as 
> its passive, Hiphil as causative with Hophal as its passive, ending with 
> Hithpael as reflexive with the object being the same as the subject. 
> 
> Now here’s my problem: after reading Tanakh through a few times without points, 
> I find no evidence for the Piel according to the above grammatical structure. 
> There are no contextual clues that I have found that indicate the intensive Qal. 
> From my experience, all the other binyanim fit the above pattern, but Piel and 
> its passive Pual don’t seem to fit anywhere. 
> 
> Peter Kirk and others have pointed out that Piel in modern Hebrew has a 
> causative meaning. If that is also the case for B-Hebrew, what is the difference 
> between the Piel and the Hiphil? What contextual clues indicate that difference? 
> In this scenario, both Piel and Hiphil are causative. 
> 
> Now one option is that the Piel is just an alternate conjugation for Qal. That 
> would explain the lack of contextual clues. Conversely, it could be an alternate 
> conjugation for Hiphil. 
> 
> Are there any verbs where the uses in Qal and Piel are split about 50-50? Are 
> there any where the uses are split about 50-50 between Piel and Hiphil? Verbs 
> where all the uses except once or twice are one or the other could be an 
> indication of scribal error. Further, if the once or twice is a Piel or Pual 
> participle, those could be alternate spellings for Hiphil or Hophal participles, 
> given the fluid spellings at that time. I could find out the above data myself, 
> but if someone has already done it, why not take advantage of his scholarship? 
> 
> Of course, we can’t leave out the possibility that I’m just dense. If that’s the 
> case, please excuse me for boring you all (though then I’m too dense to 
> recognize my own denseness). 
> 
> Thanks again, Karl W. Randolph. 
> -- 
> ___________________________________________________________ 
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com 
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list