Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Pere:

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:

>   (PP)
>>> 1. Ez 33:32 -------- Compare with the long form found in Psa 119:68. The
>>> Tanakh never uses this verb yatav (or tuv) in piel.
>>>
>>
>> (KR)
>>
>
>
>>  This one certainly is not a qal, nor a hiphil, so why not a piel? There
>> are other examples in Tanakh of where a verb appears only once in a binyan
>> while often in other binyanim, so why should this verb be different?
>>
>> Anyways, the context indicates a piel meaning, not a hiphil.
>>
>>
>>>  (PP) Are you saying, Karl, that the form/meaning of '(u)metiv' in Ps
> 119:68 is a piel one? (Remark: it would be the same in 1Sa 16:17, 4th word
> from the end)
>

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I mean the Ezekiel 33:32 example.

>
>
>>
>>> (KR)
>>
>
>
>>  Modern Israeli language is irrelevant to a study of Biblical Hebrew. In
>> many ways including grammar and vocabulary, it is a different language.
>>
>>>
>>> (PP) What would you think if I'd say: "Cognate languages are irrelevant
>>> to a study of Biblical Hebrew"?
>>>
>>
Modern Israeli is derivative, whereas the cognate languages, while of only
limited use, are independent witnesses.

>
>
>>   (PP)
>>> 2. Ex 21:12 ------- The usual piel form would be m'nakeh, would it not?
>>>
>>> Look at
>>> www.oham.net/out/P-t/P-t308.html
>>>
>>
>> (KR) First of all, this is a noun. Though nouns derived from verbs often
>> follow clear rules for participles, that is not always the case. The
>> translation of this verse is, “The one who strikes a man that he dies shall
>> surely be put to death.” The meaning is clearly not hiphil, causative,
>> rather referring to the status of the actor as having done an action, which
>> is piel.
>>
>>>
>>>
>> (PP) If I understand you correctly, do you say that -at least for this
> verse in Ex 21:12-  what is essential to the piel is "having done an
> action"?
>

My understanding of the piel is that it is a conjugation referring to a
state or status. In this case the status is that of a murderer.

>
> (PP)
>
>>   3. 1K 6:29 -------- Remark that the right piel participle form of verb
>>> savav matches ptr
>>> www.oham.net/out/PI-t1/PI-t1-117.html
>>> as the Academy of the Hebrew Language confirmed some years ago.
>>>
>>
>> (KR)
>>
>
>
>>  The Academy of the Hebrew Language is irrelevant to this discussion.
>> They are a group of people who are prone to mistakes, like any other group.
>>
>> (PP) If you mean that human beings  -me and you included, the members of
> the Academy included-  can sometimes be wrong, then I agree. But I feel you
> and everyone -also me, of course- should be more respectful towards the
> Academy. Or, in other words, one should have the Academy in a greater
> consideration...
>

No, I view them as my equals, or possibly somewhat crippled in that they
know modern Hebrew far better than Biblical Hebrew. They are neither to be
despised nor treated as something special.

>
>
>>  (KR)
>> As I said before, the evidence that counts are the words used in their
>> contexts in Tanakh, unpointed. Speculated reconstructions don’t count. Such
>> reconstructions are what Randall dismisses as “first year Hebrew” in that
>> one is looking at patterns from speculation, not actual examples as they 
>> are
>> found in the text.
>>
>> (PP)
>>
> Sincerely, Karl, I'm afraid you're somewhat "piel-obsessed"
> It seems you're seeing piels everywhere...
>

<smile> I think I could say the same thing about you, except that you are
“hiphil obsessed”.

Seriously, it’s just that many of what you claim are hiphils neither act nor
look like hiphils. Rather like piels.

Those that look and act like hiphils, yeah, they are hiphils.

>
> --
> Pere Porta
>


Karl W. Randolph.