Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

(from another thread "Psalm 31" that has little to do with Ps 31 but much
to do with general recognition of pi``els)

>>> (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"?
>
> (KR) 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.

This demonstrates a central problem in this discussion.
An unsupported, unreliable, semantic definition of 'piel' is being proposed
rather than a morphological one.

First of all, a semantic definition is subjective rather than objective.
Objectively, a pi``el can be defined by its word shape. When compared to
other Semitic languages it is called a D-stem, meaning that the second root
letter is lengthened, popularly called 'doubled'. It is the objective
word shape
that makes discussions about the meaning of a pi``el possible. Various
examples of pi``el usages can be objectively gathered and compared.
The underlying word shape also needs to be remembered in a discussion,
because a consonantal script will only partially mark a pi``el.  This needs
careful work and, yes, it can be done without the MT nikkud.
The main marks in the consonantal text are 'm' prefix in the participle, lack
of 'h' in the QATAL (tense/aspect/ or mood) and certain morphological traits
like preserving 'n' as a first root letter with prefixes, and
generating a third
visible consonant (i.e., not remaining or collapsing into two
remaining letters).
A middle yod or vav becomes fully consonantal and shows up,
like in le-qayyem [קים qiyyem] pi``el vs. la-qum [קם qam] in qal, or the final
letter doubles (like qomem, a so-called polel substitute of the pi``el).
Objectively speaking from a consonantal text --
if there is no middle or third consonant, there is no pi``el.

Secondly, the semantic definition proposed is immediately recognized as
inadequate by those with a wide knowledge of BH.  'State' and 'status' do not
cover all of the verbs that are recognized as being pi``el's in BH.
E.g., yedabber 'he will speak' is not a 'state' or 'status'. Yes, it
is related to a
noun d.b.r. 'word/thing'. But yomar 'he will say' is semantically in the same
area, a close synonym, but it is a qal, and also has a noun 'omer "saying".
In fact, when differentiating between yedabber 'speak' and yomar 'say',
 'yomar' is more of a state than yedabber because yomar focuses on
the content of the communication [a state] while yedabber focuses
more on the mode of communcation, though obviously they can be interchanged
in many contexts. But amar is qal and dibber is pi``el, contrary to the 
'state'
definition proposed for piel. In sum, a semantic definition of piel is a non-
starter.

As for מכה makkeh, it cannot be a pi``el because the nun would be preserved,
*menakkeh *מנכה, and it can't be from a root *kh "thus", nor would any other
consideration explain where the D-stem 'length' has gone to. The proposal
is bankrupt.  No one with a wide knowledge of BH can accept it (or would
propose it).

> (KR) <smile> I think I could say the same thing about you [Pere--RB],
> except that you are “hiphil obsessed”.

As for the alleged 'hif`il obsession' that was returned to Pere,
the morphology of Hebrew and its sound changes supports a hif`il מכה,
with an 'h' prefix in its Qatal,  hikkah "he hit" הכה ,
where syllable final 'n' assimilates and disappears, [*mankeh > makkeh]
and its lack of a third visible root consonant.

So is there an obsession involved? Yes. The pi``el one.
Why propose changing a consistent, fitting, hif`il makkeh into an
unsupported, impossible *m?k?h pi``el?
A "piel" *מכה with mem-prefix is recognized as impossible
by those acquainted with D-stem morphology and consonantal
sound development.

The insistence on pursuing such nonsensical proposals raises further 
questions.
One wonders just what sort of language someone was building if they
have been mis-reading the HB 20 times running, without self-correcting
inconsistencies in proposals with such common words as above.
Surely the result is a crippled, hobbled BH, with broken limbs unset and 
frozen
crookedly:

>(KR) I view them [Hebrew Language Academy--RB] as my equals, or
> possibly somewhat crippled in that they know modern Hebrew far better
> than Biblical Hebrew.

I reply straightfaced, politely.
You call others 'crippled', in particular
the Hebrew Language Academy, whose modern Hebrew at least protects
them from the kinds of mistakes that have been multiplying in your threads 
over
the past month. Before accusing them, at least point out something that they
have done that was a mistake and impossible, based on their modern Hebrew.
Then double check and make sure that your allegation is correct.
(They do have a morphologically tagged corpus/lexicon of BH, some of it is
online, though I can't imagine that they would have used modern Hebrew as
the basis for any of their analyses. The idea is against everything that they
stand for.) On the other hand --
you've already made several spurious proposals based on English
and first year grammar (despite your allusions to purity) during the
past months.
So you are not their equal in BH. Not imaginably close. To follow the
mathematical
analogy on another thread  --    adding up your grocery bill does not qualify
you as a member of a professional mathematical society. Especially if you
get the wrong sum.

"berakawote" [sic] for you

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