Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Piel etc.

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Piel etc.
  • Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:30:08 -0500


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
>
> On 11/05/2005 23:14, Karl Randolph wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> >
> > While recognizing that each binyan tends to cluster around a
> > meaning, or maybe more than one meaning, it is my desire to find
> > out what is that meaning and the breadth thereto. As a
> > lexicographer, then, if I understand the Piel, for example, then
> > I could predict what the Qal, the Hiphil and other binyanim
> > meanings would be. ...
> >
>
> Do you mean that you assume that this is true, or that you have
> proved that this is true?
>
In my research on the meanings of words, I have found, for example, that the
Hiphil always means causative of the Qal. So far, I have found no exceptions.
Of course, it may be a circular argument, I came to the table expecting to
find a fairly rigid rule, and found one, while one who does not expect such
won’t.

In a way, this is sort of like the English imperfect: verbs in the imperfect
define the simple past, therefore verb forms relating to the simple past are
imperfects. The same is true with all the time based grammar rules in
English.

> > ... But if they don’t follow the pattern, then it is a good sign
> > that I didn’t understand the Piel correctly in the first place
> > and I need to go back and do more research. But if I just blindly
> > go on, treating each semantic domain as an isolated unit,
> > treating each verb’s binyanim as independent from another verb’s
> > binyanim, what rhyme or reason can I point back to? How can I be
> > assured of the integrity of my research? How can I confidently
> > understand the text? And how can I with confidence make an
> > accurate translation of the text?
> >
> >
>
> I agree that you should not assume that the binyamin are
> independent. But you shouldn't assume either that they are related
> by fixed rules. After all, many people have tried to find such
> fixed rules, and have found the following:
>
> >
> >
> >> Some people
> >> therefore conclude that there are "rules and lots of exceptions," but
> >> I don't find that approach helpful or accurate, both because the rules
> >> tend to be complicated, and because the exceptions outnumber the
> >> non-exceptions.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > See above, sloppiness.
> >
> >
>
> Karl, if you can come up with a set of rules which are not
> complicated and have no exceptions, then that will be a wonderful
> step forward for scholarship. But until you can come up with such a
> set of rules, or at least prove that one exists, you have no right
> to assume that it is possible to do better than many scholars
> before you, and no basis and no right to accuse anyone of
> "sloppiness".
>
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/

We’ve gone around on this issue before: I accuse someone of sloppiness, you
bristle up in defense of his work, we go back and forth a few times, then it
cools down. Then I forget and it starts up again. Sorry.

To put it in perspective, a more accurate way of saying it is that I think
analysing lexeme meanings only according to semantic domains leads to a
sloppy methodology that will cause even a careful worker to deliver sloppy
results. I think that part of the reason that researchers have not been able
to come up with a set of rules concerning the relationship between the
different binyanim in Biblical Hebrew is because of this sloppy methodology.
I have come across verses that are commonly given one translation because of
how the translator understood the semantic domain, while I have a completely
different understanding based on a tight integration and application of
definition and grammar, leading to a different understanding of the semantic
domain, and usually I think it fits the context better as well.

Another factor, which again I have mentioned before, every time I look at a
definition, I ask “what is the action behind this definition?” That is true
even of nouns, adjectives, adverbs and so forth. That often ties together
binyanim that otherwise seem far apart.

I have to knock the Masoretes here. While they did wonders in preserving the
consonental text, showed great creativity in devising a vowel system to
record the pronunciation tradition they were handed, that tradition and those
points are wrong often enough so as to mess up anyone who depends on them for
definitional and grammatical analysis. That is why I never post the points
when discussing questions on this list. But you have to admit, those
Masoretes tried, and for the most part, did a great job.

But the biggest difference between my work and others is that I expect to
find uncomplicated patterns with few, if any, exceptions, and have found
them. In the case of the Qal and the Hiphil, I have found a simple rule for
which I have found no exceptions. I see I have to go back over my notes, but
it looks as if I had already noticed the Piel, as “made to be...” while the
Hiphil “cause to act...” In fact, the pattern is so consistant, that I use
Hiphils to help me understand Qal, and Qal to help me understand Hithpael,
and so forth. The fly in the ointment was that I found Piels, but didn’t
recognize them because I was taught that a Piel is an intensive Qal, which I
didn’t find. An example is the verb RWH, Qal to moisten, Piel to make moist,
Hiphil to cause to moisten (“moisten” here refers to giving a drink, rain
upon, work oil into skin or leather to make soft, water the ground which
makes it soft and receptive to plowing and seeding, hence figuratively to
moisten a person is to make a person soft as in renewing his youth, or just
as moist soil is (relatively) soft and receptive to plowing and seeding, so
to moisten a person is to soften him, making him receptive to one’s
entreaties). I previously mentioned )BD to become lost, with the Piel to make
lost and Hiphil to cause to become lost. I had those concepts in my notes,
but just didn’t recognize them as Piels. I wonder if I noticed them all?

Or maybe the reason I find so few exceptions is because I used the patterns
to help me define the terms and understand their semantic domains in the
first place.

Does what I say make sense?

Karl W. Randolph.

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page