Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

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