Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Søren Holst <sh AT teol.ku.dk>]

The Joüon/Muraoka grammar, in a footnote to the paragraph on the verb 
hishtachawah, gives the following references:

Soggin, J. A., "Tracce di antichi causativi in s ralizzati come radici 
autonome in Ebraico      Biblico", AION 15 (1965-66) 17-30

Rabin, C., 'the Nature and Origin of the Shaf'el in Hebrew and Aramaic', 
Eretz Israel 9 (1969), p. 148-58 [in Hebrew]

Wächter, L., 'Reste von Safel-Bildungen im Hebräischen', ZAW 83 (1971), p. 
380-388

I think (but better check yourself) Rabin argues in the E.E. article that 
some triliteral roots with shin as first radical are originally shaf'el forms 
of weak roots.

Does the passage in his Semitic Languages book necessarily mean, that he 
thinks the haf'el turned hif'il AFTER the disappearance of shaf'el?

kol tuv
Soren, Copenhagen

> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra:  b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> [SMTP:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] på vegne af Yitzhak Sapir
> Sendt:        1. februar 2005 00:14
> Til:  b-hebrew
> Emne: [b-hebrew] "Shaf`el" in Hebrew?
> 
> In Semitic Languages: An Introduction (Hebrew), by Chaim Rabin, 1991, 
> Biblical Encyclopedia Library, Chaim Rabin makes the following statement 
> (p. 
> 55): "[In the period of the First Temple,] the `Shafel` causative binyan 
> disappears (although there is enough evidence to show it existed) and the 
> `Haf`el` that became `Hiph`il` becomes the only causative binyan."  This is 
> all 
> very nice, but it seems to me that two points may be made:
> 
> 1) Canaanite tongues already had Haphel turn to Hiphil previously, based on 
> Amarna.  (From Encyclopedia Judaica I found in "Hebrew Language",
> 16:1566): "The Hebrew causative prefix ha- appears in Amarna as
> h_i- (attenuation).  The example is from EA 256:7, h_i-ih_-bi-e; it is
> clearly a
> hebrew form which is impossible in Akkadian.  The scribe used the Hebrew 
> hh.by) ("hekhbi" - hid) for the common Akkadian verb of the same meaning, 
> puzzuru."  
> 
> 2) I am not sure that any other Semitic language has both Haphel and Hiphil.
> Rather, it seems to me that Haphel and Hiphil have an H where the Semitic
> language has a H for the third person pronouns and an $ where the language
> has an $ for the third person pronouns.
> 
> So why is he saying that there is enough evidence to show it existed? Have 
> I 
> missed something?
> 
> Thanks :)
> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew