Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

>>>> The lack of yod is the expected form of a Hif`il imperative
>>>> without a suffix.
>>>
>>> But what about the many times that the medial yod is missing in narrative?
>>
>> What about them?
>> The BH context was a conversation with a command.
>> It was illegitimate to contest my reading on the
>> grounds of 'no yod' since 'no yod' was the correct and best form
>> for that reading in the first place.
>
> Even if you can prove that this one example is hiphil, there are
> dozens of other cases where it can be questioned. Most of those are
> not commands, so you can’t hide behind that for them.

No one is 'hiding'. haken is an imperative, hif`il. You questioned that on the
grounds that there was no yod. that was groundless.
now you agree, but without admiting it. As you wish.

Unfortunately, your failure to agree where there is no difference between us
takes us thru alot of unnecessary discussion, the first half of this response,
and generates what are called 'rabbit trails'.

>>>> >> As mentioned, your starting point was off,
>>>> >> since the root would not be 'establish' but more like
>>>> >> 'be stable, positioned unwavering, be firm'.
>>>> >
>>>>> Where do you get that definition? That’s not the definition I find when
>>>>> making a descriptive definition based on looking up all its uses in
>>>>> Tanakh, using a concordance.
>>>
>>> You didn’t answer my question.
>>
>> The definition came from reading BH, something so obvious
>> as to not need explicit statement, especially since your statement
>> of that process had lead you to a mistake.
>
> The reason I ask is that is not the definition I find from reading BH.

but your reading was an illegitimate, mistaken claim and you are
still not explaining your mistake and apparently don't even
understand the point.  to wit:
You are equating a root meaning with its precise hif`il 'application',
you are not appplying a hif`il application to the root meaning.
At least understand your own the system that you are arguing. This
wastes bandwidth and squanders people's attention.

> Which you have not proven, it can refer to an action ancillary to
> communication, an understanding that the hiphil inflection supports.

you mis-speak here. Not even on the le-hakin issue. We will come
to le-haggid below.
Returning to the point you needed to answer:
Your  definition of *KWN כ-ו-ן and its hif`il was illegitimate. If your root
is 'establish' then your hif`il must be 'cause to establish', etc. If your
hif`il is 'to establish' then you root meaning must be de-hif`ilized. Please
grasp that before responding again. This should not be a point where
we disagree. I am only pointing out 'your system' and showing you how
it works. If you disagree, you are ultimately disagreeing with yourself.

... [long digressions, irrelevant to le-haggid and le-hakin] . . .

>>> It is you who claims that different binyan are different meanings. I
>>> disagree with that.
>>
>> No you don't disagree with that. ba 'came' and hebi' 'brought' have
>> different meanings and stipulate a different set of 'arguments'
>> (to use language from logic about the 'cases' of a predication).
>
> Bad example, because “bringing” is causing someone or something to
> come. Whereas in English we use different words, Biblical Hebrew uses
> different binyanim to express the same action.

Sorry, I used language that wasn't understoond. "he came" has one
'argument' "he". "he caused something to come" has two arguments, "he"
and "something". The semantic 'frame' of the two clauses is different.
one is not two. The semantics are different. You can proceed to the next
point if these terms are new.

>> What you disagree with, is my claim that a binyan is not always
>> predictable. Stated positively, you claim that a pi``el and hif`il is
>> always predictable from a root meaning. And you have overlooked
>> the fact that if your claim were true, then there could be no
>> historical development of the Hebrew verb-root system.
...
>> Your conception of BH becomes unrealistically static.
>> Apparently, your nouns like 'qedesha' and 'nagid' can have
>> etymological development from their root, but verbs can't.
>
> To me it sounds as if you are arguing that “stewed” can have a
> different etymological meaning that “to stew” or “will stew”.

You have not understood what was being argued.
1. qatal and yiqtol will only differ in their TAM (however you define the
system. It doesn't matter what your TAM definition is, it is that
definition in which qatal and yiqtol differ).
2. A qal and hif`il, when from the same root,
have the same etymology.
3. qadosh 'holy' and qedesha 'cult prostitute' share the same root
and are linked by etymology.
But the meaning of qedesha has developed from its root in a
way that was unpredictable, unexpected.

Applied to your example:
If 'stew' the noun, no longer meant 'a kind of soup' but became,
for example,  'a problem', then we would say that we have
lexical development. But by etymology it would still be connected
with the verb 'stew', of course.  And yes, it could go thru a stage
were the two separate meanings existed side by side.

. . .
> Apparently after Tanakh the inflectional connections were lost, then
> they became etymologies, as you claim. But I don’t see any evidence of
> that within Tanakh.

I can't argue with this until you understand and clean up what was above.
The 'inflexional connections' were not lost. They are still used today.
(But first you need to understand why you cannot say that le-hakin
hif`il means 'to establish' IF you say that its root means 'to establish'.)
This was a fundamental problem above and in earlier responses.

And finally we get to data.

>> Hello? When I look over your list I can't find one. It would have
>> helped if you specified it. Since you didn't, I will need to. Then,
>> you will be able to say, that you meant a different one.
>> Whatever.
>> Maybe you referred to:
>>>This search has also caused me to revise slightly my understanding of
>>> the verb, to a more activist meaning, namely more of “to go
>>> before” more than “to be before”, and where there is an object, “to set
>>> before”. ...
>>>
>>> Genesis 14:13 “a survivor came and went before Abram”
>>
>> As mentioned above, this is a mistake concerning the nature
>> of a hif`il.
>
> Here is an example of where the consonantal text could be a qal, or a
> piel—the lack of a medial yod argues against this being a hiphil.

Not again. Please learn your forms better. wygd is not supposed to
have a yod. The lack of a yod does NOT argue against its being
a hif`il. That is the normal spelling in BH for a 3ms wayyiqtol:
wayyagged. No yod. Check it out yourself, and preferably before
further responses.

Now let me agree with you. The FORM wygd could also be a qal.
there is no problem with that on the basis of spelling.
But there is a problem on the basis of probability. When a word is
used 369 times one can check ALL of the qatal and imperative and
infinitive examples. Do they ALL have a 'he'? Yes, 247 times out of
247 examples.
If so, then the qal is not yet established as in use in BH.
Maybe yes, maybe no. If you have a compelling example where
the hif`il/hof`al meaning is not a POSSIBLE meaning, then you have
evidence of something to explain and could use a different binyan
to explain it.
See below on the need for a FIRST example.

finally, let me hold you to your example. IF Gen 14:13 were a QAL,
(I don't believe it for a minute), then it cannot contridict the claim
that the hif`il refers to 'tell, communicate'. If you pull out 20 examples
out of the 369 and claim that they are not hif`il/hof`al, but pi``el or
qal, then you still have 349 out of 349 where le-haggid only refers
to 'tell, communicate'.

By the way, have you noticed how in BH the "infinitive construct" of
pi``el and pu``al is only one, how the infinitive construct of hif`il
and hof`al is only one? Every lexeme-changing binyan has its own
infinitive construct. But not pu``al or hof``al. They do not need an
infinitive construct because they are not independent lexemes and
are not true 'binyanim' [according to the inventors or the 'binyanim
analysis' of a Semitic language (the Arabs)].

> Though you could also argue that this was a hophal, to keep it within
> the hiphil/hophal family, but then the implication is that Abram’s
> servants found the escapee and brought him before Abram.

You are arguing with a definition and usage that you have not
demonstrated. You are simply imagining meanings for a context.
As I mentioned, please show ONE example where you have an
explicit, non-speech object of the verb.
If you had one example, you would then be able to claim that the
verb was still being used in its physical meaning along with its
common lexicalization as 'to tell, communicate'.
But you have zero out of 369.

ONE example. Please. Please. Please.
Not Karl's imagination, but one, simple,
unambiguous example where the EXPLICIT object of le-haggid
is not the content of communication (notice that I use the
infinitive construct so as to include the hof`al passives. For a
hof`al that would mean one and any example where the
EXPLICIT subject is not the content of communication.)
Why do I insist on EXPLICIT? Because anybody, even Karl, can
propose an implicit object or implicit subject into whatever they
want and then rewrite and claim a different meaning for the verb.
That is illegitimate methodology and hopefully abhorred by
a Refomation theologist. Such illegitimate methodology is all
that you have offered at Gn 14:13.
So please show ONE EXPLICIT object where
that is not the content of a communication. (or hof`al subject, like 'the
tangible thing was placed in front ...'. a hif`il object and hof`al subject
are ultimately the same semantic 'argument' if one wants to get
technical. If this is not clear to you, then just start with the hif`il)
Please show ONE EXPLICIT object to le-haggid where it is not the
content of a communication.

PS: I can help you see how this works.
Consider Daniel 7.10
naged נגד is the Aramaic "qal".
It has a physical meaning approximately 'to go forward'. The subject
is 'fire', and is not the content of communication !
This is what you would want to show in BH, but it doesn't
exist in BH.  It does exist in Aramaic. Aramaic has preserved
what you were looking in BH, and not just BAramaic, but Qumran,
rabbinic, and Syriac Aramaic, too, the whole attested Aramaic
language.
However, Aramaic does not have a verb in the
af`el (the Aramaic equivalent to Hb hif`il) that means
'tell, communicate'. Isn't that amazing? The Aramaic
community did not lexicalize such a 'causative verb'.
BH did so lexicalize its causative verb from the root
n.g.d. And this is exactly what you like to repeat, that related languages
can use and develop shared words differently. Nobody disagrees.
This is not 'theology', but I can see where it may
be hard for someone to understand and admit, if they
have spent their whole BH life in what turns out to be untested,
'wishful' thinking.

It would be nice to hear the integrity of a statement like,
"I admit that I do not have one explicit example to show that
le-haggid can have a non-communication object. But I
want to believe that it can anyway."
That would be playing the game fairly. Scholarship has room
for that.

> There are dozens of examples where one can read the unpointed text as
> a piel or even qal.

Rabbit trail.
This is irrelevant. If they were qal or pi``el they would have a different
meaning. We would need to see the contexts in order to know just what
that meaning was.
And ALL of your ambiguous forms that have the 'content of
communiction' as their object should be grouped together with the
unambiguous 'content of comunication' examples. The only
unambiguous form, of course, is le-haggid (hif`il/hof`al).
And none of your alleged qal and pi``el require that anything other than the
content of communication is fitting as the subject/object.
So you are basically arguing your own imagination. and without any evidence
that would compel or force that imagination.


>> This illustrates a basic methodological problem. You want
>> to have the right to unnecessarily change the meaning of a
>> BH word,
...
>> here you want to change le-haggid into an
>> intransitive synonym of 'to come'. You don't wince at its
>> lack of support,
>
> What I find is a lack of support for a claim that it is always a
> hiphil. Further, I find a lack of support that the action referenced
> by the verb is the communication itself even where it is used in the
> semantic field of communications.
...
> The question of the subject title is: are the binyanim inflections or
> synonyms (etymologies)? You are arguing that they are etymologies, but
> so far I don’t see any evidence that backs up your claims.

You didn't answer the methodological problem.
Your sight is not my problem or question. Please reread the above until you
understand what is being said. Answer the unanswered questions
throughout, and support your unsupported 'claims'.

>You weakened your case when you admitted that hophal is an inflection
> of hiphil, and in this message appear to extend that also to piel and
> pual.

Please understand the position that you are arguing against before
arguing. I do not, and have not (at least for close to forty years),
considered pu`al and hif`il to have "independent binyan status".
I had previously mentioned this on list more than once.
These pu``al and hof`al names appear to be sacrosanct to you, which
means that you have allowed Hebrew grammarians to set your frame
of reference and you have not been able to perceive its artificial skewing
or learn its inadequancies. This is not my problem or fault. Again, deal
with the above. When you get it straight you will be able to
understand my consistent position on pu``al and hof`al.


> As for word meanings, I have seen a lot of what I call “sloppy
> lexicography” by Gesenius and his disciples, That may impact your
> responses to my statements.

Why? Where is this coming from?
I don't use them. Except when needing to document
what people are saying in English or German.

> my Reformation theology induces me ...
> You’ll need hard data to convince me otherwise.

You've been given hard data, but haven't understood it nor acknowledged
what the true data in the case is (there is no explicit non-communicaiton
example with le-haggid. and 'to establish' cannot be the definition of both
qal an hif`il with a straight face in Karl's system). This has finally
become a 'flat earth' discussion. Your not being convinced is not necessarily
a virtue and a misunderstanding of a position by Karl is certainly not data.
Nor do I see where 'Reformation theology' enters the picture at all.

Just go back and find one explicit example of a non-communication object
in BH. Then compare that total lack to Aramaic.
Then slowly begin re-orient your understanding of BH.

huggad leka  הגד לך
hahabinota ההבינת

shana tova.

-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life