Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Jonathan,

 

I'm having a hard time following your logic in this paragraph.  You say, "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."  I think I understand part of what you're getting at; but it seems that the better way to express it is simply that the hiphil has a number of nuances that can loosely come under the banner of "causative."  As well as causative, there is permissive, enabling, etc.  But the simple fact is that the verb YC) wouldn't have any of these meanings if it wasn't in the hiphil.  Or perhaps I'm missing your point.

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

Jerry Shepherd

Taylor Seminary

Edmonton, Alberta

jshepherd53 AT gmail.com

 

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Jonathan Mohler <jonathan.mohler AT gmail.com> wrote:

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