Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> >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.

No, nizcarti in MH correctly means "I recalled" which is completely
congruent with semantics of the paradigm.

> M'SUKAN ("dangerous") does
> not mean "endangered," even though Pu'al is almost always the passive
> of Pi'el.
>

Can we stick to BH?

> 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.

How many non-Semitic languages are oout there with rigid root system and no
excessiveness? Even in Russian, aspect affixes more or less mandate the
semantics.

Vadim Cherny