Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Chris Watts <dekruidnootjes AT eircom.net>]

Hi Jonathan, I understand your point although not the details, but I  
certainly get what you are bring accross.
Chris Watts
Ireland

On 10 Jul 2013, at 20:06, Jonathan Mohler 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