Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jonathan Mohler <jonathan.mohler AT gmail.com>]

Chris,

You're thinking too literally (very modern and western). You're laying the 
emphasis on the idea of causing, but what is important is the resulting 
semantic value of the verb not the fact that a hiphil was used to arrive at 
the meaning. Let me give an example from Swahili. Swahili uses -sha or - za 
as a causative suffix. Take the verb KULA, to eat.  As a causative it takes 
the form ku-LISHA, and it's meaning now is to feed, I.e to cause to eat. So I 
can certainly tell my so "feed the dog". It doesn't I force the dog to eat. 
Another example is LALA, lie down or sleep. The causative form LAZA means to 
admit someone to the hospital, the idea being that one lies down in bed when 
in hospital. I can even tell someone to take their loved one and have them 
admitted to hospital. The verb would take the form of a double causative. 
Imagine a hiphil of a hiphil. Languages like these can produce an unlimited 
amount of semantic material from a very small set of roots. 

Jonathan Mohler

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Chris Watts <dekruidnootjes AT eircom.net> wrote:

> Karl I am relieved you said that.  I came to a conclusion just about a 
> month ago that that these pronounciations merely reflected one moment in 
> one time.  The grammar books and commentaries treat every point as though 
> it were an infallible static pronounciation set since the foundation of the 
> world!  And that deviations have to be explained grammatically as long as 
> that vowel point stays there.  I came to an uneasy conclusion myself that 
> these points are more guidelines rather than set in stone.  So what if I 
> pronounce a tsere like a seghol or a patach like a chametz?  It does not 
> matter one bit, because language is fluid, and there coexists quite happily 
> different pronounciations within a single language.  Biblical hebrew is not 
> taught in any of the books like this, in fact they way they go on and on 
> about a single solitary vowel and the necessity to lengthen this because 
> that is in pause and that affects the short vowel which now dissappears and 
> it takes half a page to explain became burdensome claptrap quite honestly.  
> It has been many years before I came to this realisation and must say that 
> much of the stress has gone from previous years.  This is why I posted the 
> question some time ago about the pronounciation of Jerusalem when there was 
> an artificial hireq placed at the end to form a dual so that one says 
> Yerushalyim instead of Yerushalem, which the latter makes for better 
> meaning anyway.  I do not question that this was how it was pronounced when 
> the hebrew grammarians pointed it in their day, but I do not believe that 
> this was how it was originally pronounced at the time when the scribes were 
> composing and writing the various books.  (Apart from a couple of instances 
> if I remember correctly).  I also learned from a rabbi (and this was an eye 
> opener) that the vowel pointing does not even reflect everyday 
> pronounciation even at he time of the masoretes, it is for the most part a 
> liturgical device, a musical device and poetic device.  So Yerushalyim is 
> great when you sing it, but yerushalem kind of ends the rythmic feel too 
> abruptly in music.  Now the vowel pointing makes more sense for when I hit 
> a seghol and think hey, that does not sound right, it feels awkward on my 
> lips and clumsy.......
> 
> So back to the Hiphil.  How would a hiphil imperative be translated here 
> anyway, I simply am not knowledgeable enough to be able to do this. I can 
> not even guess at it.  In essence how can any hiphil be an imperative when 
> the hiphil relects a causative aspect in a sentence?  (realising that some 
> hiphils are not strictly causation). how can you cause something in an 
> imperative fashion, does not make sense at all.
> 
> Chris Watts
> Ireland
> 
> Chris Watts
> 
>