Biblical Hebrew Forum

["George Athas" <gathas AT hotkey.net.au>]

Hi Joel!

Thank you for your comment about the binyanim (ie, stems) not dictating 
semantic sense. I agree with you to an extent. You helpfully imply that 
language does not work like mathematics -- it is far more fluid and abstract 
in its logic and operations, and Biblical Hebrew is no exception. However, I 
would not swing the pendulum so far the other way that the binyanim/stems 
become purely arbitrary forms. There does seem to be some method to the 
'madness' of the binyanim/stems. It might be a verbal chaos theory, but I 
think there is some logical control. When claiming that there is an intensive 
or heightening sense to verbs in the Piel, we do not mean that the sense is 
artificially imposed upon the root from the outside. Rather, the semantic 
range of the root itself in the Piel lends itself to heightened action.

For example, it is not that the verb DiBBeR means to 'speak emphatically' or 
anything like that. Rather, it is that Biblical Hebrew sees the very action 
of speaking as somehow heightened. In other words, the root DBR naturally 
occurs in the Piel stem because Biblical Hebrew sees the Piel stem as the 
appropriate form. If you compare the usage of DiBBeR (Piel, 'to speak') with 
the use of (aMaR (Qal, 'to say'), you will find that while there is a lot of 
semantic overlap, there is a slightly different semantic range because the 
Qal is generally reserved for the most basic of stems, and the Piel is 
reserved for more formalised or heightened action. We might not readily see 
what the 'heightened' feature of the action is, but that doesn't really 
matter much in the end. Piel might be heightened in the sense that it causes 
a state to occur, or an action is viewed intensively, but these nuances are 
not added to the semantic range; they are to be seen within the semantic 
range of the particular root. This is why virtually no verb occurs in all 
seven binyanim/stems -- each of the binyanim/stems has a particular feel to 
it. It's not a mathematical imposition upon the root such that a nuance can 
be derived, but is rather a sense such that a nuance is felt.

Also, I think Karl is right about the dangers of using Modern Hebrew to make 
definitive statements about Biblical Hebrew. It sometimes has illustrative 
value, but not determinative value.

Best Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
(Sydney, Australia)



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dr. Joel M. Hoffman 
  To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
  Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 1:32 AM
  Subject: [b-hebrew] Piel etc.


  Regarding Piel etc.:

  It is simply not true that the binyanim dictate semantic sense.  So to
  say that "Piel [is] a heightened action of some kind," or that "Piel
  [is] the imposition of a state (adjectival)..." is to do everyone a
  disservice.

  In both modern and ancient Hebrew, each binyan tends to cluster around
  a set of meanings, but the clustering is not absolute.  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.

  Furthermore, the belief in semantic rules that accompany the binyanim
  leads to (sometimes severe) misunderstandings of the Hebrew words,
  because people try to force their wrong notions of the semantic import
  of the binyanim onto the words.

  For example, in Modern Hebrew, the Piel GIDDEL means "to grow (plants)
  or to raise (children)," while the hiphil HIGDIL means "to enlarge."
  Similarly, the hiphil HIRXIK means "to cause to be far away," while
  its opposite, "to cause to be nearby," is Piel (KEREV).

  There is nothing intensive or emphatic about "speaking" (Piel: DIBBER)
  or, for that matter, faxing (Piel: FIKSES), or focusing [a camera, say]
  (Piel: FIKES).  Returning to Biblical Hebrew, there is still nothing
  emphatic about "speaking."  We can also look, say, at Genesis 12:3,
  where we find two words for "curse" clearly used in parallel, but one
  is in Piel (KILLEL), while its synonym is in Kal (ARAR).  Similarly,
  the passive of BERACH (Piel) is not Pual but Niphal (NIVRACH) there.

  There is nothing emphatic about the nearly-passive verb "to get," but
  it, too, is Piel:  KIBEL.

  Branching out a bit, the Niphal verbs NISHBA' ("to swear") and NAMAS
  ("to melt") are not at all passive, and neither are the modern Hebrew
  Niphal verbs NIZKAR ("to recall") and NIFTAR ("to die").

  For that matter, the relationship between NIFTAR/HITPATER
  ("die"/"quit") is not at all the same as the relationship between
  'IBED/HIT'ABED ("lose"/"commit suicide").

  The oppositve of "to gain weight" (Hiphel: HISHMIN) is the Kal verb RAZA
  ("to lose weight").

  The Kal verb 'AVAD means "to work" or "to serve," while the Piel 'IBED
  means "to process."

  The Piel verb KIRSEM simply means "to gnaw" not "to gnaw
  emphatically."  The hiphil verb "HEVIN" simply means "to understand,"
  not "to cause someone to have wisdom."

  These and many, many, more examples disprove any notion of binyanim
  dictating semantics.

  Nonetheless, it is generally true that Kal/Niphal, Piel/Pual and
  Hiphel/Huphal form active/passive pairs, though even there exceptions
  are not uncommon.

  -Joel Hoffman
  (joel AT exc.com)






  _______________________________________________
  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 13 08:09:11 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 F08C74C006
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 13 May 2005 08:09:10 -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 1DWYyZ-0001He-Hr; Fri, 13 May 2005 13:09:09 +0100
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.308 [266.11.9]);
        Fri, 13 May 2005 13:09:14 +0100
Message-ID: <428498EA.7020708 AT qaya.org>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:09:14 +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: tladatsi AT charter.net
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Four Rivers of Eden - Genesis 2
References: <41djhm$r3l46p AT mxip10a.cluster1.charter.net>
In-Reply-To: <41djhm$r3l46p AT mxip10a.cluster1.charter.net>
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, 13 May 2005 12:09:11 -0000

On 13/05/2005 04:07, tladatsi AT charter.net wrote:

>Mr. Kirk,
>
>yes, rivers with deltas do form short, indistinct branches.
>Yes rivers can be divided by sand bars, ox bows, and
>sloughs.  The Nile does form two main, and many smaller,
>channels in the delta, but not above.  However, no river
>anywhere branches out to form two distinct rivers in
>separate beds in opposite directions, much less into
>separate valleys or basins as the Tigris and Euphrates do.
>
>
>
This is not true. As Karl mentioned, the Orinoco splits into two rivers
which flow in quite different directions. The branches of the Nile are
quite distinct channels which enter the sea up to 100 miles apart. In
antiquity one branch may even have flowed into the Red Sea. And no one
is claiming that the four rivers of Eden, if in lower Mesopotamia, were
"distinct rivers in separate beds in opposite directions, much less into
separate valleys or basins".

As I see it, there are two alternatives for the rivers of Eden:

1) Four branches into which the Euphrates or similar split as in a
delta, when close to the sea in lower Mesopotamia.

2) Four rivers of some other area, very likely in modern terms eastern
Turkey or north west Iran, which were commonly believed to have a common
source even though this is not actually true.

Or of course, if we look at just the text, the whole thing could have
been pure mythology.

--
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