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: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Piel etc.
  • Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 01:14:03 +0100

On 12/05/2005 03:30, Karl Randolph wrote:

...

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.

Well, the rule might be similar to that of the English imperfect, a case of inflectional morphology (and syntax); or it might be a classic case of derivational morphology, like English -ish, which simply doesn't have a single fixed semantic force. A priori you cannot know. So you should come to this without any preconceptions of whether there will be a fairly rigid rule, as far as this is possible.

...

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.


Fair enough, I can accept that this is true of many researchers. Maybe sometime one will come along and do a better analysis which just might come up with a clearer rule for Piel.

...

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.


You will never convince anyone of a rule for the semantics of Piel without at least taking proper account of the Masoretic pointing, not just rejecting it but if necessary explaining where and why it has gone wrong.

...

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?


Yes, but I fear that your method may be partly circular and so potentially faulty.

--
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: 266.11.9 - Release Date: 12/05/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page