Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

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.