Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>]

>verbs which he thinks inconsistent with the paradigmal meaning (such
>as an active verb in niphal). Then we would consider if perhaps the
>semantics is different in other languages.

Examples from Modern Hebrew are plenty.  NIZKARTI ("I was thinking
about") does not mean "someone remembered about me," even though the
niphal is generally the passive of kal.  M'SUKAN ("dangerous") does
not mean "endangered," even though Pu'al is almost always the passive
of Pi'el.  (The value of evidence from MH is explained below.)

The Biblical root N.C.L demonstrates the same point.

Your reasoning is entirely circular.  You claim that the paradigms
dictate meaning, and as proof cite all that words that you think have
been misunderstood, and which can only be understood in light of your
circular theory.

The question here is one of methodology.  Is the default assumption
that all human languages basically share common elements?  (I think
so, along with most other modern linguists).  Or is the default
assumption that ancient Hebrew is fundamentally different than all the
other languages about which we have concrete evidence?  It seems to me
that both common sense and Occam's razor would militate against the
latter approach.

-Joel Hoffman
 http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman