Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Vadim,

Some Hebrew grammar books say that the piel form is for XIZUQ HA-P(UL- 
AH, the strengthening of the action, to wit, $ABAR is plain 'broke',  
but $IBER is 'broke to pieces'. I don't see any justification or  
basis for this interpretation. It is only because of the multiple  
meanings of DABAR that we use DIBER for 'spoke'.
In present-day Hebrew the piel form is used to extend the meaning of  
a word, for instance, $AMAR is 'guarded', but $IMER is 'conserved'.  
RAXAQ is 'distanced himself', while RIXEQ is 'pushed something or  
someone away'. $ATAQ is 'was silent', $ITEQ is 'paralyzed', and HI- 
$TIQ is 'silenced something or someone'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jun 19, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Vadim Cherny wrote:

> Piel has general semantics of a command, strong action. Why not  
> consider a parallel in milspeak which strengthens the second  
> consonant and reduces the first vowel? That's exactly what we see  
> in piel: davar - [d'vvvvAar!!!] - d'ber - diber.
>
> Vadim Cherny
>
>
> Isaac Fried wrote:
> > It is conceivable that the dagesh in middle radical of the piel  
> > and the pual forms are just vestiges of a hinting system preceding  
> > the nikud. I can imagine the public Torah reader or the local  
> > teacher placing a discreet central dot, pertaining to the entire  
> > word, in, say, the B of $BR of Exodus 9:25
> > ואת כל עשב השדה הכה הברד ואת כל עץ  
> > השדה שבּר
> > in order to remember to read it $IBER and not $ABAR.
> > Similarly, a dot was placed in the B of TB(U of Exodus 15:4
> > ומבחר שלשיו טבּעו בים סוף
> > to remember to read it as TUB(U, not TAB(U.
> > The nakdanim incorporated this hinting system in the nikud and the  
> > result is what we have today.
> >
> > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> >
> > On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:06 PM, Isaac Fried wrote:
> >
> > > Yakov,
> > >
> > > Allow me to write V for a soft bet, and B for a hard. Also, F for a
> > > soft pe and P for a hard. Recall also that $ is shin.
> > > So we have in Hebrew DAVAR, 'thing, word', but also DABAR, 'leader,
> > > speaker'. We have NAFAX, 'blew', but also NAPAX, 'blacksmith'.
> > > I do not know why there is a dagesh in the middle radical of the  
> > > piel
> > > form, but does it practically matter now if we write NI$EK,  
> > > 'kissed',
> > > without a dagesh in the $? Those who pretend to read it NI$-$EK
> > > delude themselves. I think that BK"P became hard thereby only
> > > incidentally, but now we are stuck with this phenomenon and need to
> > > say DIBER, not DIVER.
> > > Look at the word KAF, 'palm of the hand'. 'My hand' is KAPI. Why is
> > > the pe now dgusha? Because, say the grammar books, the word is from
> > > the root KPP. So what? Does this have to turn an F into a P?
> > > Conclusion: The less you explain the better off you are.
> > >
> > > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> > >
> > > On Jun 16, 2008, at 9:43 PM, Yakov Hadash wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jun 16, 2008, at 8:11 PM, Isaac Fried wrote:
> > > > > We will need to keep the dot, the "dagesh qal", in the letters
> > > > > bet, kaf, pe to distinguish between their "hard" and "soft"
> > > > > manifestation. Otherwise, the dagesh is redundant in plain speech.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah but you didn't address my issue.
> > > >
> > > > Without the dagesh hazak, there is no way of explaining a lot of
> > > > confusing issues with vocalizing Hebrew, especially with פיעל
> > > > and התפעל, which have dagesh hazak as part of the stem.
> > > >
> > > > Do you want people to just not be able to know why there's a noun
> > > > "davar" and a verb "medabber" (and not "davar" and "medaver")?
> > > >
> > > > YH.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> >
> > </div>