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: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hithpael functions (was Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew)
  • Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:49:50 +1000

Hi Karl,

Thanks for replying. We shall agree to disagree. I disagree with most of all of what you write below. What you do with lexicography and the binyanim seem much the same as what Rolf does with the verbal conjugations: finding intrinsic meaning. Anything that does not fit what you deem to be intrinsic is treated as idiomatic. Like I said, you'll have to do that over and over if you want to stick with this methodology. What you have done with the Hithpael, you'll have to do with the Niphal, which in my opinion is again mutifunctional, being middle-passive, or mediopassive in linguistics. Same with Piel, which has some resultative functions as well as expressing verbal plurality.

Regards,
David Kummerow.



Dear David:

Right now I'm in a situation where I not only don't have a book
budget, but I need to shed myself of a lot of books I already have,
along with other materials.

As for Genesis 42:1, I got to thinking after I submitted my last
missive. I had taken the traditional interpretation of "looking at
each other" without critical thought. But upon later thought, I
realized that Jacob was referring to looking at oneself, not at each
other. In colloquial English, what he said was "What are you doing,
staring at your navels! There's food in Egypt, so get off your butts
and get some food."

Think about it. They were sheep herders. But the grass was all gone,
and with no grass, most of their livestock was gone too. They had to
let the slaves go, and with nothing to do, they simply sat around
"staring at their navels". Now they were facing starvation. And when
asked where the next meal was to come from, all they could do is hang
their heads and stare at the ground, or if seated, look at their hands
and feet. Jacob had his priorities right, at least do something.

Thus, in this case, the hitpael is reflexive. And that was the only
example that you sent that I previously admitted may not be purely
reflexive.

No, I disagree, the French se is not equivalent to the hitpael. Not
when one is careful with word definitions, grammatical usage and
allowing for the ancients to use idiomatic uses, just as we do today.
Abraham's "I made me walk..." clearly refers to more than just the
physical action of walking, when the context is taken into account,
and this is not the only example of this use of this verb. There are
other examples where the hitpael of "to walk" does not mean to go to
and fro, or to wander about, even in the physical, not idiomatic
sense, rather to make one's way, to make oneself go. Further, insight
does not have the capacity of volition or independent action, yet it
is the subject of the verb acting in Isaiah 29:14. A similar example
in English is "A stitch in time saves nine" which it most certainly
cannot. Of the examples you sent, those were the only two that have an
idiomatic use.

Thanks for the little article. I have not read it all, but the author,
even as far as I have read, I find I disagree with him. It doesn't
help that his second example is marred by combining two different
words that have become homonyms in English (also in German, but not in
Norwegian), trying to say that they are examples of multiple uses of
the same word. But the biggest point of departure is that he defines
according to semantic domains, and I by action. Sound familiar?

Karl W. Randolph.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page