Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Hithpael functions (was Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hithpael functions (was Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew)
  • Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:46:31 -0400

Karl,

In Genesis 42:1 TITRAU = AT-HI-AT-RA-HU with all four personal pronouns referring to the sons of Jacob. I think that RA is 'fear', not "see'. Thus, the question there, is, in my opinion: "why are you scaring yourselves (or each other)?" Going down to the heart of Egypt was certainly a difficult and scary undertaking for the brothers to contemplate.

It is risky to question such a venerable authority as KJV, but "Why do ye look one upon another?" appears to me to be an awkward and unnatural figure of speech. It is, nevertheless, better then "Why are you scratching your heads and twitching your noses?"

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Mar 24, 2007, at 11:51 AM, K Randolph wrote:

Dear David:

Thanks for your response.

On 3/23/07, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Karl,

Comments below:

...
You have repeatedly mentioned the use of "yesterday", ...


Again, the issue is raised in the literature and potentially impacts
Rolf's work is why I raised it (eg in Buth's grammar). We've been over
this, so I won't reiterate (see my previous post to you), but to add
that I actually agree with Rolf on qatal being the same verb as weqatal.
weqatal is used differently, though, mainly as a cosubordinate verb,
sometimes in hypothetical/conditional constructions, and purpose/ result
constructions, so this does not negate the fact that as qatal it is not
used.

Yes you did mention it before, and for that I thank you. I mentioned
it again only for completeness within this discussion.

An interesting question to ponder is: if an ancient Israelite were to
utter the following to another, how would they be construed:

פָּקַדְנוּ אוֹתוֹ

נִפְקֹד אוֹתוֹ

אֲנִי פֹּקֵד אוֹתוֹ

In each of the cases, in particular the last, I need more of the
context. In the last example, depending on the how the context frames
it, the participle can act either as a noun emphasizing who is the
actor or as the equivalent of a present tense verb, of which there are
a few examples in Tanakh.

On 3/22/07, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo at hotmail.com> wrote:
....

Note that grammaticalisation can also EXTEND meaning. There's plenty of
stuff on this in the linguistic literature. Regarding BH verbs, this is
likely to have occurred with, say, the hithpael. The range of meanings
is neatly described by Anstey 2005: 74-76, ie reflexive, grooming/body
motion, naturally reciprocal, anticausative, and generic passive. It
likely that meaning has been extended over time towards the passive, but
it has not lost its reflexive function. Some, eg W-O, claim that it
expresses even the passive and not just generic/gnomic passive. But do
you see the problem if I were to follow your method? What is the
uncancellable semantics denoted by the hithpael binyan? The more we move
to "passive" the less "reflexive" the semantic, but the more "passive"
the semantics, the less "reflexive". However, similarity exists between
anticausative and generic passive and similarly reflexive and body
motion and reciprocal. But if I were to strictly follow your approach
you have applied to the verbal system, I am indeed very hard pressed to
find a common denominator between all of these "functions"....

...
Regards,
David Kummerow.

In this case, how many of these functions are the result of
lexicographic methodology, and how much the result of different
functions? Can you cite examples of each of all of these claimed uses?
Sorry, I don't mean to put you on the hot grill, but I haven't seen
all those functions in the hitpael. All I have seen is the reflexive
usage, though my understanding of reflexive may be broader than your's
or the authors' above.


Examples are from Anstey's article and dissertation:

Reflexive: Gen 24:64 "and she covered herself".
Body motion: Gen 24:40 "and he walked about".
Naturally reciprocal: Gen 42:1 "you look at each other".
Anticausative: Isa 29:14 "[insight] will vanish".
Generic passive: Prov 20:11 "a child is recognised [by his deeds]".

I was right, I do have a more expansive understanding of reflexive
than does at least Anstey. We both agree with Genesis 24:65. Verse 40
does not refer to body motion, rather it is more of an idiomatic
phrase referring to living his life, and within that idiomatic phrase
it is used reflexively. Genesis 42:1 is an example where I have a
broader understanding of reflexive than others, as I understand mutual
interaction within a group as a type of reflexive. In Isaiah 29:14
"insight" is the actor, the subject, so again this is somewhat of an
idiomatic use of the hitpael where insight hides herself. Finally,
Proverbs 20:11 is reflexive in that a youth makes himself recognized,
what sort of person he is, by his repeated actions, again clearly a
reflexive use.

The examples above show that looking at action as primary instead of
form affects not only lexicography, but also the understanding of
grammar. With the exception of understanding reciprocal actions as a
type of reflexive use, all the other examples are reflexive as
commonly understood.

Waltke and O'Connor argue even for passive, see pp. 424ff.

Sorry, I don't have access to that book.

French "se" covers the same range of functions as BH Hithpael. Russian
"-sja" misses reflexive but adds passive. Each of these similarly
presents problems for Rolf's methodology.

...


Regarding the questions, everybody is unanimous these days that
paragogic nun is only attached to the long prefix verb and ditto for the
third-person pronouns augmented with nun. I think the same could be said
about the status of the other features diagnostic of the short prefix
verb vis-a-vis the long prefix verb.

Thanks. I have noticed the paragogic nun, but as it has minimal affect
on lexicography, if any, I have not studied its distribution. But in
so far that it is a sign of grammaticalization, and as far as it has
been described to me, Rolf's dissertation is about grammaticalization,
I agree that he should at least address the question of the paragogic
nun, either why it is not important or what is his answer to it.
...
Regards,
David Kummerow.

Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page