Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: Prepositions with Berakh and Different Types of Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jonathan Bailey <jonathan.bailey AT gmx.de>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew list <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[2]: Prepositions with Berakh and Different Types of Hebrew
  • Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:52:47 +0200


Well, the translation about the blessed state comes not from a lexicon, but
rather
from a grammar, "Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax" by Bruce Waltke and
M.
O'Connor which states that the common conception that the piel has the double
role
of intensive and causative comes from a failure to understant the
factitive/resultative
nature of the binyan. Though it destroys the English language (to the point
of making
the meaning harder to understand), ultra-literal translations of piel can and
should
quite often reveal that piel is interested in bringing about a state. Pp
396-411 cover
this discussion.

In my post to you, I mentioned the following as my first choice for
translation: "So you
are saying that the factitive nature of the Piel brk would make berakhtikha
leyhwh
mean something like 'I put you in a blessed state OF yhwh.'" My
capitalization of the
word "of" here should have made it obvious that I was aware of your
explanation of the
genitive role of the preposition "le-" and that I understood it. My second
choice was
"TO yhwh", which was my attempt to do something with the "goal" dimension of
le-
which you also mentioned. Of course I was more convinced of the first idea,
which is
why I mentioned it first in my post to you and then mentioned it solely in my
post to
Baruch.

I did not overlook your post, but if you will remember, my request concerning
le- was
actually (originally) an attempt to get someone with ready access to a search
engine
(Mine are in the mail for the next month.) to tell me if brk and le were
common in the
HB, which Baruch did. So it was not until I received the verses from him that
I was
truly satisfied, but I did acknowledge your points in both my reply to you
and in my
reply to him. My mentioning the factitiv piel was not an overlooking of your
point. It
simply helped me to make sense of the genitive relationship. All of Baruch's
verses
involve the kal passive participle. My inscription is using the piel perfect
(I think...there
are no vowels). Saying "blessed of yhwh" makes sense. Saying "I bless you of
yhwh"
makes less sense. If we take the time to ruin the English to expose the
factitive
function of piel and give an awkward but accurate translation "I cause you to
be
blessed of yhwh" (apparently causative, but actually factitive), then we have
more
sense. So I am sorry I added that little dimension of the piel in order to
make the
genitive function of le- here more palatable, and in so doing seem to have
set off a
little train of confusion.

So let me just say that I understood you and appreciate your commentary.


Jon

---------- Original Message ----------

>No, Jon, I did not tie it to any supposed nature of the stem, nor did I
>claim that the phrase you are examining is a smoothing out of the
>English. I'm saying that you are confusing the two usages of the
>English, "by," one that refers to the channel and one that refers to the
>source. "Blessed by YHWH" is a completely different concept than "the
>word of YHWH which he spoke by Hosea." The first is genitival, the
>second is instrumental. It's interesting that, in a message you sent
>out about twelve hours after mine, you yourself replied to Baruch Alster
>that the use with lamed is genitival, yet you completely overlooked that
>same point in my post. And the fact that it is genitival in the context
>you describe, and that your expectation of instrumental would be
>inappropriate, sums up the only point that I was making.

>The same concept is part of the English genitive. "Blessed of YHWH"
>refers to YHWH as the source of the blessing. And, lest you think that
>I am stretching the point, compare the verses that Baruch gave you to
>verses like Gen 22:18, where beth is used to show that the seed of
>Abraham is the *instrument* of the blessing. Baruch's verses show that
>YHWH is the *source* of the blessing.

>I'm not sure what lexicons you are using, but I have not found any that
>interpret BRK in the pi`el as "to put on in a blessed state."

>I'm sorry you misinterpreted an overly simplistic, partial impression of
>the prepositions lamed and beth. Hope this clears up that I was dealing
>with a much more limited scope than you apparently thought I was.

>Paul

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Jonathan Bailey <jonathan.bailey AT gmx.de>
>To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
>Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 7:55 PM
>Subject: Prepositions with Berakh and Different Types of Hebrew


>> So you are saying that the factitive nature of the Piel brk would make
>berakhtikha
>> leyhwh mean something like "I put you in a blessed state OF yhwh.", or
>"I put you in a
>> state of being blessed TO yhwh.", both of which one would then render
>into
>> acceptable English as "I bless you by yhwh."?
>>

><remainder snipped to save bandwidth>


>---
>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: jonathan.bailey AT gmx.de
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page