Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

Boy, your answers are getting awfully long. As a result I skipped a lot. If
you think I skipped something important, then bring it up again.

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> 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?
> >>
> you mis-speak here. Not even on the le-hakin issue. We will come
> to le-haggid below.
>

You’re right, I thought you were discussing the hiphil of NGD.


> 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.


Of course. In this case, the head butler (which was what that man was) would
give orders to “establish” set up the meal, thereby causing it to
established through the actions of lower slaves.


>  I am only pointing out 'your system' and showing you how
> it works. If you disagree, you are ultimately disagreeing with yourself.
>

Looks like a misunderstanding on your part.

>
> >>
> >> 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.
>

Sorry, your method is illegitimate. It is illegitimate for studying modern
languages. Therefore it is also illegitimate for studying ancient languages
like Biblical Hebrew. I have repeatedly said that semantic frames (forms) do
not work in modern languages, so why should they work in Biblical Hebrew?

On the other hand, analyzing according to action works in modern languages.
So why should it not work in Biblical Hebrew?

One of my top complaints, among others, about semantic frames is that it
unnecessarily adds scads of complexity and clutter that obfuscate rather
than clarify learning new languages.

(In other words, Occam argues against semantic frames as being a legitimate
methodology for studying languages.)

>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
>

Oh?

While all the examples of NGD as a 3ms yiqtol prefixed by a waw lack a
medial yod, the same is not true of all other peh-nun verbs in yiqtol hiphil
3ms with a prefixed waw. Further, 3mp yiqtol with a prefixed waw NGD verbs
are sometimes with, sometimes without, a medial yod and the 3ms without a
prefixed waw sometimes has a medial yod. So it becomes a matter of chance
that in one narrow situation that it just happens that the medial yod is not
found. Is this not cherry picking?

Yes, to verify the above answer, I did electronic searches on an electronic
text.

>
> 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.


Where is this probability coming from?


> 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.
>

Irrelevant.

That’s like saying that because around 90% of wayyiqtols are found in
narrative, therefore in the semantic frame of past events, therefore
wayyiqtol form is a sign of the past tense. That is shown to be wrong, so
likewise your numbers above are irrelevant.


> If so, then the qal is not yet established as in use in BH.
>

That is putting the cart before the horse, or in other terms, the conclusion
before the investigation, or the verdict before the trial.


> 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.
>

This is a guilty before proven innocent argument, where you have made an a
priori decision that they are all hiphils, therefore make them all hiphils.
But human languages are not always mathematically clear. And there are many
cases where I do read them as other than hiphils.


>
> PS: I can help you see how this works.
> Consider Daniel 7.10
> naged נגד is the Aramaic "qal".
>

How many times do I have to repeat that arguing from cognate languages is
illegitimate? Because even close cognates can have unexpected and even major
differences in details?


>
> > 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.
>

I do read them as being different from the hiphil in action, but you don’t
because of your a priori conviction that they all are hiphils.


>
>
> 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".
>

Now I really don’t know what you are talking about.

I learned the term “binyan” here on this list, where it is used to point to
the different forms Hebrew verbs take, namely the qal, niphal, piel, pual,
hiphil, hophal, hitpael. So now what do you mean by “independent binyan
status”? First you use “tense” and “aspect” with definitions that I could
find in no dictionaries, not even linguistic glosseries, so are you using a
non-standard definition for “binyan” as well? What do you mean by that?


> Nor do I see where 'Reformation theology' enters the picture at all.
>

Part of Reformation theology is to question experts, go back to original
sources. Just because an “expert” makes a claim does not mean that it is
true or accurate. Therefore when I ask you for a chapter and verse to back
up one of your claims, and you don’t provide one or more, then what am I to
assume? Is that not evidence that you may be wrong?

>
>
> 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
>

Now נגד is a term that I pretty much accepted unchanged from other
dictionaries, primarily because it is broadly defined that can fit many
contexts, including many not in Tanakh. Now this discussion makes me
question, does it really have a more restricted meaning? More restricted to
the idea of being in the sight of or something similar?

Karl W. Randolph.