Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Karl,

The discussion of the Piel stem by Waltke/O' Connor is excellent. I 
also find the studies of Goetze, Jenni, and Ryder very informative. 
Because we do not have informants, there will always be a great 
element of subjectivity when generalizations regarding the use of a 
particular stem are sought. I hold the view that the Hebrew Piel and 
the Akkadian D-stem basically are factitive and resultative, which 
means that the stress is on the state (someone may for example lead 
through the end of an action and into a resultant state). An 
interesting word to study is BRK. Of its 327 occurrences, 233 are in 
the Piel stem, and all the 71 instances of the Qal stem are passive 
participles. In my view intensive or causative explanations of Piel 
are not correct. In contrast to Piel, Hiphil is causative and 
stresses action (agent 1 may cause agent 2 to do something).

I have taught Hebrew and Akkadian for many years, and when we have 
read texts in class, I have systematically looked at the Piel/D-stems 
in order to see if the factitive/resultative viewpoint would fit. In 
some verbs it is difficult to see a difference in meaning between Qal 
and Piel in Hebrew and between the G-stem and the D-stem in Akkadian. 
But when the context is favorable, in most cases the 
factitive/resultative view has been fitting.

The advantage of a study like that of Jenni, where verbs in 
Qal-Piel_Hiphil are compared, is that hundreds of roots can be dealt 
with, and particular patterns may emerge. The disadvantage is that 
the comparisons occur rather quickly because the corpus is big. In 
the classroom, fewer roots are discussed, but the advantage is that 
more time is used in looking at the meaning of each verb on the basis 
of lexicon, grammar,  syntax, and context. So, my classroom 
experiences have strengthened my factitive/resultative viewpoint.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


> snip
>
> I buy the concept that it is a stative use of the verb, emphasizing either
> the subject (actor) or object (acted upon) more than the action itself.
> Further I can see it as making a verb out of a noun. But the intensification
> right now for me is a no starter and the pluralization shaky at best.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
>  >
> >