Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Dave:

Actually, I meant it for the whole group.

The way I was taught was:

                     simple          intensive          causitive

active                Qal              Piel              Hiphil
passive              Niphal            Pual              Hophal

reflexive was by itself: Hithpael.

The "intensive" has always been too vague to satisfy me. Further, Aramaic 
seems not to have it (I speak as one with just surface familiarity with 
Aramaic, not as an expert). Others have said that it is a marker for the 
"stative" concept.

As a lexicographer, I have found that pattern to fit the use in Hebrew quite 
well. However, working from an unpointed text, it is often impossible to 
recognize the difference between the Qal, Piel, Pual and sometimes even the 
Niphal except from the context. Hiphils and Hophals have consistantly fit as 
causitives, I don't recall a single time that either could be reflexive, 
while Hithpael gives no trouble as a reflexive. Your example below seems to 
be one of many where comparitive linguistics has a hiccup.

The above pattern has neither the place nor the need for a "shafel" form.

As for $XH, when as a Hithpael, places the "t" after the sibilant, in a 
manner consistant with other Peh sibilant verbs. With this being a regular 
feature of the language, to claim that this is evidence of a unique 
grammatical form found no where else in Tanakh sounds more speculative than 
to ask if this may be from a quadrilatteral verb, the latter which I find 
less palatable than to say that it is an irregular verb.

$M$ sometimes takes a masculine verb (e.g. Johsua 10:13), sometimes feminine 
(e.g. 2 Kings 3:22), so to say that this is a feminine verb in Song of Song 
1:6 $$ZPTNY H$M$ as poetic "the sun glimpsed me" to reference being out in 
the sun is not out of line. Nor is it out of line with Hebrew usage, where 
poetic phrases abound, especially in the latter pre-exile writers, though 
found in earlier poetry as well.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>

> 
> Actually, it's based on comparative linguistics.  The matrix of the Hebrew
> stems looks something like this:
> 
>                      simple                     intensive             
> reflexive
> 
> Active         qal                          pi`el                    hiph`il
> 
> Middle        niph`al                     hitpa`el                ?
> 
> Passive      niph`al                     pu`al                   hoph`al
> 
> Since we didn't really know of anything to fill in the question mark, early
> grammarians didn't think to examine the odd form of Hi$TFXAWeH in that light
> until Ugaritic came around.  Some comparison with it and some other Semitic
> languages showed that what we have here is the missing form in the matrix,
> even though it is preserved in only one word in our rather limited corpus of
> writings.  I'm not sure where you got the meaning below, but the word means
> "bow the knee" as in worship or adoration in every context where it appears,
> at least in this stem.  So it all fits together nicely and provides a much
> simpler solution to the problem than a speculative quadriliteral root.
> 
> Incidentally, did you intend to send this message direct to me, or was is
> supposed to go to the list?
> 
> On Thursday 03 February 2005 11:17, you wrote:
> > Dave:
> >
> > I find it easier to accept a quadrillateral root $XWH than to claim a
> > special grammatical form used for only one verb. After all, there are a 
> > few
> > other quadrillateral roots in B-Hebrew, along with several bilatteral
> > roots, though most roots seem to be trilatteral.
> >
> > Or is it possible that this is a lamed waw verb? Or more likely a slightly
> > irregular verb which is used quite often?
> >
> > It is possible that this is a loan word, that came in in the form it had 
> > in
> > its original language, which would mean that this is not a grammatical 
> > form
> > that was used in Hebrew. But this argument is weakened by its use in a
> > non-hithpael form in Isaiah 51:23.
> >
> > XWH means to declare, make a declaration, a slightly different meaning.
> >
> > In closing, I wonder if Holliday/K-B speculation is based more on
> > philosophy than strict linguistic principles, like some other theories 
> > over
> > the past couple of centuries?
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
> >
> > > On Wednesday 02 February 2005 13:37, Bill Rea wrote:
> > > > Yitzhak wrote:-
> > > >
> > > > >Finally, we should mention Hishtah.awwah, which in Ugaritic is
> > > > >a Shafel form, so there the connection with Shafel is much
> > > > >clearer  (And yet, the presence of the Hi- prefix suggests it is
> > > > >used as a quadratic root $-h.-w-w in Hitapel form, I guess).
> > > >
> > > > With all the usual caveats about finding meaning of real words from
> > > > theoretical roots, if Hishtah.awwah was indeed a Hitapel form from
> > > > the root $-h.-w-w what would it mean?
> > >
> > > I don't know who said the Ugaritic was a Shafel, but it's my
> > > understanding that Ugaritic showed us that the Hebrew form is a
> > > previously-unknown H-$-T form from a root XWH.  See Holladay/K-B, which
> > > calls this form an "Eshtafal."
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dave Washburn
> > > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> > > "No good.  Hit on head."   -Gronk
> 
> --
> Dave Washburn
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> "No good.  Hit on head."   -Gronk

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm