Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Isaac,

The scholars that I have cited are exceedingly astute and careful 
linguists who do not speak nonsense. Their combined analysis is weighty 
and quite suggestive that the position is accurate.

To the best of my knowledge, I have never claimed that this was the sole 
function of the Piel, in any case. It would seem to be multifunctional, 
with a verbal plurality function as well a 
factitive/causative/estimative of (generally) stative verbs.

Regards,
David Kummerow.


> David,
>
>
> I am sorry, but your claim that piel indicates "Intensive" action or 
> that it stands for  "verbal plurality" is, in my humble opinion, pure 
> nonsense. What is it, $ABAR (notice the R) is broke to two pieces  but 
> $IBER is broke into twenty pieces? Where did you get it?
>
>
> Isaac Fried
>
>
> On Feb 5, 2009, at 11:52 PM, David Kummerow wrote:
>
> > "Intensive" may be taken as pre-theoretical terminology for what may be 
> > also labelled "verbal plurality".
> >
> > Qal ShBR = "he broke" but Piel ShBR = "he smashed into pieces
> > Qal QBR = "he buried" but Piel QBR = "he buried many"
> > Qal GD` = "he cut off" but Piel GD` = "he cut into many pieces"
> > Qal Sh'L = "he asked" but Piel Sh'L = "he begged"
> > Qal LQT = "he gathered something together" but Piel LQT = "he gathered 
> > something together (from may places, over and over)
> >
> > See:
> > Doron, Edit. 2003. “Transitivity Alternations in the Semitic Template 
> > System.” Pages 127-149 in Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II: Selected 
> > Papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Paris, 2000. 
> > Edited by Jacqueline Lecarme. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and 
> > History of Linguistic Science 241. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
> >
> > Fehri, Abdelkader Fassi. 2003. “Verbal Plurality, Transitivity, and 
> > Causativity.” Pages 151-185 in Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II: 
> > Selected Papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, 
> > Paris, 2000. Edited by Jacqueline Lecarme. Amsterdam Studies in the 
> > Theory and History of Linguistic Science 241. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: 
> > John Benjamins.
> >
> > Greenberg, Joseph H. 1991. “The Semitic ‘Intensive’ as Verbal 
> > Plurality.” Pages 577-587 in Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau: On 
> > the Occasion of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday, November 14th, 1991. 2 vols. 
> > Edited by Alan S. Kaye. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
> >
> > Kaufman, Stephen A. 1996. “Semitics: Directions and Re-Directions.” 
> > Pages 273-282 in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First 
> > Century: The William Foxwell Albright Conference. Edited by Jerrold S. 
> > Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
> >
> >
> > Regarding the Niphal, it is better thought of as middle-passive. See:
> > Boyd, Steven W. 1993. “A Synchronic Analysis of the 
> > Medio-Passive-Reflexive in Biblical Hebrew.” PhD diss., Hebrew Union 
> > College.
> >
> >
> > Regarding the Hithpael, it is better thought of as reflexive-middle. See:
> > Arnold, Mark A. 2005. “Categorization of the Hithpa‘ēl of Classical 
> > Hebrew.” PhD diss., Harvard University.
> >
> > Regards,
> > David Kummerow.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Jason:
> > > I am fully aware that not all words appear in all stems. So the
> > > assumption that I'm wanting to put any root into any stem is false.
> > > Again, I just want to know what these forms are, and how to handle them
> > > when I come across them. So if I see a word in stem X, I want to know
> > > how the stem is dictating the translation. I'm not trying to build words
> > > - just take them apart.
> > >
> > > Lloyd and George
> > > I want to thank you two VERY much for helping me to understand this 
> > > stuff!!!
> > >
> > > So would the following chart be correct:
> > > Qal: Active, Simple - "Bob broke it"
> > > Nifal/Qal Passive: Passive Simple - "Bob was broken"
> > > Piel/Polel/Poel/Palel/Pilpel/Pealal: Active, Intensive - "Bob REALLY
> > > broke it"
> > > Pual/Polal/Poal/Pulal: Passive, Intensive - "Bob was REALLY broken"
> > > Hifil/Tifil: Active, Causative - "Bob caused it to break"
> > > Hofal/Hotpaal: Passive, Causative - "Bob caused it to be broken"
> > > Hitpael/Hitpalpel/Hishtafel: Reflexive - "Bob caused himself broken"
> > >
> > > Am I right so far?
> > >
> > > I have just three items I need clarified:
> > > Pilel: According to George its a hybrid, according to Lloyd it is the
> > > same as Piel.
> > > Polpal: According to George its the same as Piel, according to Lloyd it
> > > is the same as Pual.
> > > Nitpael: According to George its "intensive passive (half nifal, half
> > > piel)". Wouldn't that make it the same as Pual?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks again for the help!!!
> > >
> > >
> > > B"H
> > > John
> > >
> > > "He who makes a mistake is still our friend; he who adds to or shortens
> > > a melody is still our friend; but he who violates a rhythm unawares can
> > > no longer be our friend."
> > > -Ishaq Ibn Ibrahim 767-850 CE.
> > >
> > > "If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you
> > > behave."
> > > -Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
> > >
> > > "The difference between the intelligent man and the simpleton is not the
> > > correctness of their decisions, but rather the cunning sinner can more
> > > skillfully defend and justify his iniquity."
> > > - Rabbi Tovia Singer
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew