Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

Pere,

Your examples of Joel 1:18 and Ezekiel 16:7 are good.
You are right that the Hebrew grammarians do not tabulate a Niph'al  
for RUC, yet on a theoretical level I can not see how an act such as  
RUC can not have a "real" binyan Niph'al, or that it "lacks" a  
Niph'al. Is there something inherently wrong with NA-ROC-U?
Niph'al is being occasionally used now in place of Hitpael. I often  
hear NE-(EMAD for the voluntary HE-(EMID )ET (ACMO, 'planted  
himself'. The form HIT-(AMED is shunned, possibly to avoid confusion  
with HIT-(AMET, 'confronted, clashed', but HIT-YA$EB, 'sat down', is  
considered very fine in place of NO$AB, which is used now as an  
adjective.
To continue in the same theoretical vein: the inherently involuntary  
act NAPAL, 'fell', is in qal, the N being radical, but it is actually  
of a niph'al sense (origin?), and for this reason, I think,  we never  
hear NIPAL, which is listed!.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Apr 7, 2008, at 12:12 AM, <pporta AT oham.net> <pporta AT oham.net> wrote:

> The acts RUC, KUM, SUR, $UB appear to be inherently voluntary [as  
> opposed to NI-RDAM, 'fell asleep' and the corresponding NE-(OR,  
> 'woke up, bestirred', as in Zechariah 2:17] and hence a Niph'al  
> form is not listed for them. The roots SUG, 'deviate, recede', MUG,  
> 'melt away, dissolve', PUC, 'disperse', RUM, 'lift', are listed in  
> the Hebrew grammar books as "having" a Niph'al form, so I do not  
> see why RUC should not have it.
>
> If the Niph'al form of MUG is NA-MOG, of PUC is NA-POC, 'became  
> dispersed', and of RUM is NA-ROM, why not RUC -> NA-ROC. The NA-MOG- 
> U KOL YO$BEI KNA(AN of exodus 15:15 could equally well have been NA- 
> SOG-U KOL YO$BEI KNA(AN or NA-POC-U KOL YO$BEI KNA(AN or NA-ROC-U  
> KOL YO$BEI KNA(AN, 'dispersed are all the inhabitants of Kna(an'.
>
> _____________
>
> I agree that in the Bible itself some intransitive verbs ayin-waw  
> are used in Niph'al.
> Examples: in Joel 1:18; Is 1:4 and Ez 16:7 (all of them pattern  
> www.oham.net/out/PS-d/PS-d1759.html)
>
> But I realize that as regards RWC, to run, none of the dictionaries  
> nor lexicons I have at hand lists its Niph'al as an existing and  
> real binyan.
> Then maybe our NAROC would be a Niph'al form (thus an exception to  
> the general fact that RWC lacks Niph'al)?
>
> Pere Porta
>
>
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On Apr 5, 2008, at 12:18 AM, <pporta AT oham.net> wrote:
> > > > As regards "to run"... are you sure that it is one of them?
> > > > If yes, do you think that:
> > > >
> > > > 1. I run 20 miles every week  -- is intransitive use
> > > > 2. I cannot run this program -- is transitive use?
> > >
> > > Correct on both. Or another example, "The snake oil salesman was  
> > > run out
> > > of
> > > town."
> >
> > _______
> >
> > Yes, Karl.
> > > From an English viewpoint this is as you write. But from a Hebrew  
> > > viewpoint
> > it is wrong.
> > The Hebrew view of the sentence is:
> > "The snake oil salesman was caused to run out of the town"
> > Namely, the Huph'al and not the Niph'al of "run".
> > I mean: the right word  --if we should to translate the sentence into
> > Hebrew-- would not the Niph'al of RWC, but the Huph'al of RWC.  
> > Look at B.2
> > in  www.oham.net/out/P-d/P-d083.html
> > and remark the examples taken from the Bible.
> > I suggest you to take advice whether the Niph'al of RWC really  
> > exists.
> >
> > Warm greetings!
> >
> > Pere Porta
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew