[b-hebrew] Piel - was About Dagesh's

Isaac Fried if at math.bu.edu
Fri Jun 20 12:51:38 EDT 2008


Vadim,

I agree that some people have a greater and deeper sensitivity to  
what they are reading than others and may feel a sense of intensity  
in the "loaded" piel form. I just fail, in my rational way of  
thinking, to see it.
RCX, 'murder' is quite an intensive action yet is not used in the  
piel form, likewise HRG, 'kill', and likewise HRS, 'destroy'. We have  
BA(AR, 'burned', and BI(ER, 'eradicated'. Is the latter stronger then  
the former? Possibly.
I think that the Hebrew grammar books, especially those geared to  
young students, should refrain from making tentative statements. A  
teacher may raise the possibility and encourage a discussion on this  
aspect of the piel form, but he should desist from imposing a  
doubtful opinion.
Who is this James Bar and what is so special about him that he has  
hardcore followers? Can I find his writings on-line?


Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 20, 2008, at 2:21 AM, Vadim Cherny wrote:

> The Modern Hebrew is of no concern to me as it twists the real  
> Hebrew beyond repair.
> As for piel strengthening the action - for those of us who are not  
> hardcore followers of James Barr, it should be self-evident. The  
> thing is, this type of intensification is not clear in, for  
> example, English linguistic mentality.
>
> n-sh-hey - paal "move", piel "make someone forget" (move even from  
> the memory)
> n-sh-c - paal "bite", piel "bite multiple times, to death"
> n-sh-l - paal "remove", piel "expel"
> n-sh-k - paal "touch" (mouth with hand), piel "kiss"
>
> Some words have only piel form rather than paal because the root  
> semantically convene intense action.
>
> Vadim Cherny
>
> Isaac Fried wrote:
>>
>> Vadim,
>>
>> Some Hebrew grammar books say that the piel form is for XIZUQ HA-P 
>> (UL-AH, the strengthening of the action, to wit, $ABAR is plain  
>> 'broke', but $IBER is 'broke to pieces'. I don't see any  
>> justification or basis for this interpretation. It is only because  
>> of the multiple meanings of DABAR that we use DIBER for 'spoke'.
>> In present-day Hebrew the piel form is used to extend the meaning  
>> of a word, for instance, $AMAR is 'guarded', but $IMER is  
>> 'conserved'. RAXAQ is 'distanced himself', while RIXEQ is 'pushed  
>> something or someone away'. $ATAQ is 'was silent', $ITEQ is  
>> 'paralyzed', and HI-$TIQ is 'silenced something or someone'.
>>
>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>>
>> On Jun 19, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Vadim Cherny wrote:
>>
>>> Piel has general semantics of a command, strong action. Why not  
>>> consider a parallel in milspeak which strengthens the second  
>>> consonant and reduces the first vowel? That's exactly what we see  
>>> in piel: davar - [d'vvvvAar!!!] - d'ber - diber.
>>>
>>> Vadim Cherny
>>>
>>>
>>> Isaac Fried wrote:
>>>> It is conceivable that the dagesh in middle radical of the piel  
>>>> and the pual forms are just vestiges of a hinting system  
>>>> preceding the nikud. I can imagine the public Torah reader or  
>>>> the local teacher placing a discreet central dot, pertaining to  
>>>> the entire word, in, say, the B of $BR of Exodus 9:25
>>>> ואת כל עשב השדה הכה הברד ואת כל עץ  
>>>> השדה שבּר
>>>> in order to remember to read it $IBER and not $ABAR.
>>>> Similarly, a dot was placed in the B of TB(U of Exodus 15:4
>>>> ומבחר שלשיו טבּעו בים סוף
>>>> to remember to read it as TUB(U, not TAB(U.
>>>> The nakdanim incorporated this hinting system in the nikud and  
>>>> the result is what we have today.
>>>>
>>>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:06 PM, Isaac Fried wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yakov,
>>>>>
>>>>> Allow me to write V for a soft bet, and B for a hard. Also, F  
>>>>> for a
>>>>> soft pe and P for a hard. Recall also that $ is shin.
>>>>> So we have in Hebrew DAVAR, 'thing, word', but also DABAR,  
>>>>> 'leader,
>>>>> speaker'. We have NAFAX, 'blew', but also NAPAX, 'blacksmith'.
>>>>> I do not know why there is a dagesh in the middle radical of  
>>>>> the piel
>>>>> form, but does it practically matter now if we write NI$EK,  
>>>>> 'kissed',
>>>>> without a dagesh in the $? Those who pretend to read it NI$-$EK
>>>>> delude themselves. I think that BK"P became hard thereby only
>>>>> incidentally, but now we are stuck with this phenomenon and  
>>>>> need to
>>>>> say DIBER, not DIVER.
>>>>> Look at the word KAF, 'palm of the hand'. 'My hand' is KAPI.  
>>>>> Why is
>>>>> the pe now dgusha? Because, say the grammar books, the word is  
>>>>> from
>>>>> the root KPP. So what? Does this have to turn an F into a P?
>>>>> Conclusion: The less you explain the better off you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 16, 2008, at 9:43 PM, Yakov Hadash wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 16, 2008, at 8:11 PM, Isaac Fried wrote:
>>>>>>> We will need to keep the dot, the "dagesh qal", in the letters
>>>>>>> bet, kaf, pe to distinguish between their "hard" and "soft"
>>>>>>> manifestation. Otherwise, the dagesh is redundant in plain  
>>>>>>> speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah but you didn't address my issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without the dagesh hazak, there is no way of explaining a lot of
>>>>>> confusing issues with vocalizing Hebrew, especially with פיעל
>>>>>> and התפעל, which have dagesh hazak as part of the stem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you want people to just not be able to know why there's a noun
>>>>>> "davar" and a verb "medabber" (and not "davar" and "medaver")?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YH.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> b-hebrew mailing list
>>>>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> </div>
>>
>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list