Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

When dealing with qal, niphal, piel, etc., are we dealing with inflections,
or are we dealing with synonyms?

This is the question brought up by Randall in his post on KWN. As far as I
understand his post, he treats roots as historical accidents that have
minimal influence on the meanings of words. In this, I think he is
influenced by modern usage, modern lexicography and translations. I mention
Randall only because of his recent posting, I think there are many who agree
with him.

I, on the other hand, understand these as different inflections that point
to different functions applied to verbal action. The qal is simple action,
while the hiphil indicates causal inflection, while the hitpael has the
action focus on the actor, often in a reflexive action, and so forth.

As a lexicographer, I made wide use of the concept that these forms indicate
inflections. That helped me cut through the clutter of apparently different
uses to attempt to understand what words actually mean. My goal, as far as
possible, is to try to get inside the minds of the Biblical authors, by
seeing their use of the Hebrew language. In this effort, translation can
interfere with internalization of language.

One aspect of the question: I do not expect these words to be used in the
same way as their nearest equivalents in other languages. I was introduced
to this expectation when I was young and learned German, where the German
word “unter”, which is clearly related to the English word “under”, yet is
sometimes used in ways totally unexpected by English speaking people. So
even more in Hebrew, being from a different language family, we cannot
expect that words have the same usages as their nearest equivalents in
English. That’s what makes literal translations from Hebrew to English so
awkward, almost to the point of not being able to be understood at times.
That is especially true if these forms indicate inflections rather than
synonyms, that translations often will be better if one uses different words
rather than a literal translation.

To give an example, NGD has the meaning of: “to be(come) before, in front of
⇒ hi. to cause to be in front of, most often used in giving a message,
making sure the it is received, i.e. “in your face” in modern American
parlance” This is different from BSR which means to report, but without the
emphasis of the hiphil of NGD.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Karl W. Randolph.

Ps: To all who have asked for copies of my dictionary, could you please
contact me off list and I will send a copy. I am constantly updating it—most
recent updates add Biblical references, clarifications, though some add
synonym references and a couple other changes.