Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Piel and the Binyanim (Re: Verb Stem Confusion)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Piel and the Binyanim (Re: Verb Stem Confusion)
  • Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:30:57 +1100


Hi Isaac,

To repeat the main point from my previous post: you have provided no substantiation of your claim, nor interaction with the arguments of Greenberg, Fehri, Kaufman, etc.

There are no infixed personal pronouns -- I've already demonstrated that your pronominal theory here is wrong. You have not countered my arguments -- other than saying that I've gotten too technical, or that you don't understand linguistics, or that phonemics isn't a scientific method (the latter point unsubstantiated by you).

Regards,
David Kummerow.


David,


you can rest assured that the claim for intensity or repetitiveness for the Piel is, not only factually, but also inherently, baloney. The belief that $ABAR is for two pieces but $IBER is for many pieces, that QABAR is for one corpse but QIBER is for many corpses, that $ATAL is for one tree but $ITEL is for many trees, is an obvious fizzle. The "reduplication of the middle radical" is also in my opinion a linguistic fata morgana.
Piel is a root augmented by to infixed personal pronouns for the actors, that's all. It is like the Hipil except in this latter binyan the first personal pronoun is prefixed.

Present-day Hebrew makes great use of Piel to create verbs of shifted meaning, say, $ATAQ, 'kept quiet' versus $ITEQ, 'paralalyzed'. Indeed, in Jeremiah 12:13 QACAR is 'reaped', but in Psalms 102:24 QICER is 'cut short'.
Also, verbal forms out of foreign words: TILPEN out of telephone, FIXES out of fax, FIRMET out of format.

Isaac Fried


On Feb 9, 2009, at 5:12 PM, David Kummerow wrote:


Isaac,

We can hardly "rest assured" by your claim when a) you have provided no substantiation of your claim, nor interaction with the arguments of Greenberg, Fehri, Kaufman, etc.; and b) you have demonstrated consistent linguistic incompetence in other areas and an unwillingness to learn linguistic method. As such, your claims of "sheer nonsense" can simply be dismissed.

Greenberg particularly has provided the typological background for understanding the verbal form. Under such an analysis, the reduplication of the middle radical is both predictable and explainable.

Of course, as I've stated previously, the verbal plurality function of the Piel I take as one of its functions, with a resultative/causative/estimative function of (generally) stative verbs being its other main function, as Jenni and others have shown.

Regards,
David Kummerow.




You can rest assured that the the claim of intensity or repetition (RAKAD versus RIKED) for the Hebrew piel is sheer nonsense.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 9, 2009, at 7:37 AM, Peter Bekins wrote:

Yitzhak,

Thanks for the plug. For what it is worth, I personally disagree with
Goetze and lean towards the view that the doubling indicates
plurality as is common in Semitic (and non-Semitic) languages. This
was argued well by Joseph Greenberg (though I haven't put up a
summary of this paper yet):

Greenberg, Joseph H. “The Semitic ‘intensive’ as verbal plurality: a
study of grammaticalization. Pages 577-587 in Semitic studies in
honor of Wolf Leslau on the occasion of his eighty-fifth birthday.
Edited by Alan S Kaye. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1991.

I summarize Kouwenberg's study of the D-stem (piel) in Akkadian in
which he reaches the same conclusions:

http://balshanut.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/kouwenberg-njc-gemination-
in-the-akkadian-verb-studia-semitica-neerlandica-33-assen-van-
gorcum-1997/

Peter Bekins

On Feb 9, 2009, at 12:52 AM, b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:

Peter Bekins discusses one article on the Piel here:
http://balshanut.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/goetze-albrecht-the-so-
called-intensive-of-the-semitic-languages-jaos-vol-62-no-1-
march-1942-1-8/

Also relevant is his discussion here:
http://balshanut.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/the-complicated-
morphology-of-the-semitic-binyanim/

Yitzhak Sapir






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page