Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Dear David:

I think we have reached an impasse in this discussion and must agree
to disagree, and in a pleasant manner.

On 3/29/07, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> wrote:
> You are only taking a few isolated examples I cited. I don't have time
> to research more for you, but you could read some of the grammars and
> get more examples. Also, do a search for Hithpael of halak -- hardly any
> with fit your idiomatic use above, instead meaning "to walk about/to and
> fro". But then you aren't open to these ideas...
I did look up the hitpael uses of HLK in response to this discussion,
and in only a minority of its uses is it even possible for it to have
the definition you give above, even the concept of walking is often
absent as the mode of going. Of course, idiomatic uses are rare, after
all, is that not the definition of "idiomatic use" that it refers to a
non-standard use? But I noticed that even in the direct physical sense
that it usually does not have the definition that you give above, and
in the cases where that definition could possibly apply that that is
not the only definition that fits.

In over 35 years of reading Tanakh in Hebrew, I have not noticed one
case where hitpael in Hebrew refers to other than reflexive. It is
true that I have not been looking for non-reflexive uses, but if it
were common, I most certainly would have noticed it. You gave three
examples, and in all three the hitpael is reflexive.

Translation is a completely different ball of wax: how modern English
and other western European languages render the ideas expressed with
the hitpael in Biblical Hebrew may be as a simple declarative, as a
passive, and so on, but does that change the reflexive use within
Biblical Hebrew? I say not.

...
> > Who are Waltke and O'Connor that I should listen to them? ... The same 
> questions for Steven W. Boyd.
> >
>
> They perhaps have done much more extensive grammatical study of Hebrew than 
> you, so you should be open to listening to them.
My question was more rhetorical than to say that they are wrong. And I
would be more than surprised if they haven't done much more study on
the grammar than I. But because I know neither them nor their work, I
don't put them on a pedestal as something special until they prove
themselves. It is possible that I end up disagreeing with their
methodology, or find that I completely agree with them. Merely to pull
their names out of a hat as authorities carries no weight with me.

> > As one who is largely self-taught in Hebrew, I know I lack many of the
> > credentials expected of scholars nor do I know the big names in the
> > field, but at the same time, I notice that I have a feel for the
> > language that many scholars seem to lack. I have read the text
> > probably 20+ times and memorized chapters. How can such not
> > internalize the language in ways that transcend formal study?
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> >
> >
> Yes it's worth a lot I think.
>
> Regards,
> David Kummerow.
I just reread Genesis 10–13 for the umpteenth time. Yes, I have
started reading Tanakh through again. The question arises, which is
more useful in learning the language: reading studies made by learned
men about the language, or reading in the language itself? One will
give me the scholarly terminology as it pertains to the language, the
other will leave me like a little child with a feel for the correct
usage, but no way to describe why it is correct. And by not confusing
my mind by studying cognate languages (e.g. Ugaritic, Arabic, even
Mishnaic Hebrew), does it not strengthen my feel for  Biblical Hebrew
itself?

Karl W. Randolph.