Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

John,

YES: Qal: Active, Simple - "Bob broke it"
YES: Nifal/Qal Passive: Passive Simple - "Bob was broken"
YES: Piel/Polel/Poel/Palel/Pilpel/Pealal: Active, Intensive - "Bob REALLY
broke it" (but I would go for 'smashed' to indicate 'REALLY broke')
YES: Pual/Polal/Poal/Pulal: Passive, Intensive - "Bob was REALLY broken"
YES: Hifil/Tifil: Active, Causative - "Bob caused it to break"
YES: Hofal/Hotpaal: Passive, Causative - "Bob caused it to be broken"
YES: Hitpael/Hitpalpel/Hishtafel: Reflexive - "Bob caused himself broken" 
(but I would remove Hishtaphel, because it is its own stem for one root.

Then,

Pilel: According to George its a hybrid, according to Lloyd it is the
same as Piel.
A: I'm just guessing here, John. I don't think we fully know what the Pilel 
is.


Polpal: According to George its the same as Piel, according to Lloyd it
is the same as Pual.
A: Well, it seems to have an active meaning, so probably not like Pual.


Nitpael: According to George its "intensive passive (half nifal, half
piel)". Wouldn't that make it the same as Pual?
A: Sort of. Niphal is not pure passive. It has a range of meanings, all of 
which are interested in the subject receiving the action. The origin of the 
action is not of concern. So, it could be passive (coming from another agent 
to the subject), or it could reflexive (coming from the subject themselves). 
In any case, Nitpael, from what we can gather, is certainly not far from Pual.



Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au