Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Pere:

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:

> (Pere)
>
>> Of course, Karl, sure that the Masoretes mistook this and this other word.
>>
>>> But... generally speaking the pi'el marks an intensive (as well as other
>>> nuances) of the qal.
>>>
>>
>> (Karl Randolph)
>>
>
>
>>  Where do you get this idea of intensification? Is it not from
>> mis-pointing of Qals as Piels?
>>
>>>
>>>
>> (Pere)
>
> In most Hebrew grammars, Karl.
>

I now question most grammars because of all the “first year lies” (things
that I later learned were inaccurate) that I learned from them. That’s why
I now ask for examples to back them up.


> For a sample, in Gesenius Grammar:
>

Gesenius in particular is one who I question because I found his dictionary
not always accurate (it was using his dictionary in particular that led me
to write my own, starting as corrections in the margins of my copy of his,
which I transferred over to my copy of a concordance also expanding and
correcting it, later to make into an electronic file.). That is not the
only reason I distrust him and his grammar.

>
> "The fundamental idea of Pi'el to which all the various shades of meaning
> in this conjugation may be referred, is *to busy oneself eagerly* with
> the action indicated by the stem"
>

This is not an intensification, rather a mood indicating attitude (busy
oneself eagerly). What may be more accurate is to say that the Piel refers
to stative or repeated actions.

>
> a) --a strengthening and repetition of the action:
>
> צחק, *to laugh* (cf Gn 18:13) in qal and *to jest, to make sport* (cf Jdg
> 16:25) in the pi'el.
>

This is an example of the stative, namely that Samson became an object of
laughter, both joyful laughter שחק in that they had captured their enemy,
and an object of derision צחק that in his blindness he was helpless before
them. Again not an intensification of the Qal.


> שאל, *to ask* (Jdg  5:25) in qal and* to beg* in the pi'el (Ps 109:10)
>

As far as I know, there is no word in Hebrew specifically for “to beg” as
separate from asking, as begging is a synonym of asking. Therefore, in
Biblical Hebrew, the word for begging would be the same as the word for
asking, שאל. So again, in this verse, this is not talking about an
intensification, rather a stative or repeated action.

>
>
> b) -a causative sense (like Hiph'il):
>
> למד, *to learn* (Is 26:10) in the qal; *to teach* (Ecc 12:9) in the pi'el
>

This is not a good example, because Ecclesiastes 12:9 is not a clear
example of teaching. Do you have a clear example?

>
>
> Pere Porta
> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Northeastern Spain)
>

In conclusion, I have yet to be shown an example of where the Piel is an
intensification of the Qal, rather it is stative or refers to repeated
action. So where does this idea of intensification come from?

In my mind, searching through this question as led me to another question:
is the difference between the Qal and Piel the difference between the
perfective and imperfective aspects in Biblical Hebrew? That the Qal refers
to point action, while the Piel to continuous or repeated action as well as
place of action? Qatal and Yiqtol are not where aspect is found in Biblical
Hebrew, is it found in this area?

Karl W. Randolph.