Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

@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 
>From peterkirk AT qaya.org  Fri May  6 17:34:00 2005
Return-Path: <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from pan.hu-pan.com (hu-pan.com [67.15.6.3])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E64454C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri,  6 May 2005 17:33:59 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from 213-162-124-237.peterk253.adsl.metronet.co.uk
        ([213.162.124.237] helo=[10.0.0.1])
        by pan.hu-pan.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.50)
        id 1DUASL-0005fQ-79; Fri, 06 May 2005 22:33:58 +0100
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.308 [266.11.5]);
        Fri, 06 May 2005 22:32:24 +0100
Message-ID: <427BE268.4040009 AT qaya.org>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 22:32:24 +0100
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
        rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
To: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Boring grammar again
References: <20050506203716.4D98A101D8 AT ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050506203716.4D98A101D8 AT ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
        please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pan.hu-pan.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.ibiblio.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - qaya.org
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 21:34:00 -0000

On 06/05/2005 21:37, Karl Randolph wrote:

>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? ...
>
>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.
>
>  
>
Anything I said was about biblical, not modern Hebrew.

I remember learning that there was some difference in the causative 
nature of Piel and Hiphil. I think it was that Piel causes a state, 
whereas Hiphil causes an action. But the dividing line is not strict. 
And I think that is the best way to look at Piel, as not related to 
other verb form (binyanim) by any strict semantic rules. It should not 
be considered an infected form of the verb, with a fixed semantic force, 
but rather as a derived verb (with its own morphology), with a meaning 
related to that of other forms based on the same root but with no fixed 
relationship. Indeed, it is probably best to give each binyan a separate 
dictionary entry - except that Pual and Hophal may be considered 
inflected passive forms of Piel and Hiphil.

The situation is similar to some derivational suffixes in English, 
although not so much verbal ones. An example is the English suffix -ish, 
which was discussed recently on another list. It has a range of 
meanings, which are related to one another in some general sense, but 
not fixed meaning.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 04/05/2005