Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] HITPAEL as mutual action and Prov 20:2

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: Richard Benton <rcbenton AT wisc.edu>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] HITPAEL as mutual action and Prov 20:2
  • Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:07:09 -0400

Richard,

I dislike generalizations and abstractions but think I understand what you are saying.
I tend to think that TIT-RA)U of Genesis. 42:1 is a scribal error for TIT-YAR)U, 'discourage yoursevs'.
The NIT-RA)EH of 2Kings 18:8 is 'reveal ourselves'.
WYI$TAKXU of Qohelet 8:10 is 'and they sank themselves into oblivion'.
MIT(ABER of Proverbs 26:17 is 'involve himself, get himself mixed, bring himself upon', as it is in Proverbs 20:2.
In Proverbs 26:17 (OBER is 'passing by', then MIT(ABER is 'bring himself over into', the fray that is not his business.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Apr 27, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Richard Benton wrote:

Isaac,

The distinction I am making comes from Kemmer's (1993) book, "The Middle Voice." To put it briefly, she defines the difference between the middle and reflexive according to the "distinguishability of participants." In an active (transitive) sentence, A acts upon B. In a reflexive, A acts upon B, but A and B happen to be the same. The two are cognitively distinct, but pragmatically the same. In the middle, A acts on itself and is cognitively the same as the affected entity.

This distinction is played out in languages that have clear formal distinctions between reflexive and middle. For example, spontaneous actions (e.g., "boil") would occur in the middle but not the reflexive.

So I would disagree that the middle participant's action would necessarily be more intentional or that the participant would be under greater control. Hitpael subjects can be unable to act (e.g., Qoh 8:10).

Regarding Prov 20:2, the translations (e.g., NRSV, NJPS) are difficult, as they seem to understand a causative nuance of the Hitpael, like a Hiphil. This, I think, is a strange way to interpret the Hitpael. This verse is hard, but I would interpret it in this way. The participle refers to someone getting angry (a process--"getting worked up"). The possessive suffix I would understand as the object of the anger. So I would translate, "the one getting angry at him (the king) sins against himself." The moral of the story: don't pick fights with the king, because you won't survive the response.

Rich

Isaac Fried wrote:
Richard,

It would be good if you could explain to us briefly what you mean by the "distinctions between the middle and the reflexive". Also, what are the "good examples" of IBHS ?(what is this IBHS?)
I see it this way. The hitpael describes an action done by an actor upon himself. By virtue of this the act appears to be intentional and under greater control than when cast in the qal form. For example, saying HOLEK LA-REDET GE$EM, 'it is going to rain', means that a sequence of atmospheric events is set in motion that will inevitably result in rain. But upon reading MIT- HALEK BA-GAN, 'walking in the garden', of Genesis 3:8, one's imagination is triggered to "see" somebody deliberately and controllably leading himself up and down the paths of the garden.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:07 PM, Richard Benton wrote:

Dear George,

Yes, it sounds like you see my point. In the past, some authors have jumped from this observation to the idea that the Hitpael is reflexive, but you can't make that leap necessarily. Often languages make clear distinctions between the middle and the reflexive, even though they are related. (Slavic languages, such as Russian, do so, as well as others on every continent.) Furthermore, often the middle overlaps with a passive function, and we see this in Biblical Hebrew. (IBHS lists some good examples.)

Cheers,
Richard Benton

George Athas wrote:
Good observations, Richard. Your distinction between the Qal and Hitpael of HLK is very illuminating, and shows that the Hitpael is more interested in the subject being the host of the action (i.e. Subject is the locus where the action occurs).


Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page