Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] "Piel, what's it good for?"

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] "Piel, what's it good for?"
  • Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:47:32 +0100

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.

>






  • Re: [b-hebrew] "Piel, what's it good for?", Rolf Furuli, 02/11/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page