To: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>, "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Cc:
Subject: [b-hebrew] What piel stands for
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:36:29 +0300
In my opinion, there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Just think how piel
appeared. For millennia it was indistinguishable from paal. Who would use
indistinguishable grammatical form? I think, piel is the same old paal, but
pronounced forcefully to reflect the intense meaning.
This forceful pronunciation of paal created piel:
cathAv - cathAav (intonational accent) - caththAav - c'ththEv (I'm not sure
of English analogy, but this phonology is widespread in Russian: verb "go"
poshiol becomes p'shshiool in command) - c(i)tev
In other words, piel is not a real form, but command pronunciation of paal.
Vadim Cherny
> As for recognizing the difference between a Qal and Piel, I have yet to
see a well defined way that all can agree to to recognize it from the
context. It seems that even the top scholars disagree on what a Piel stands
for.
> Karl W. Randolph.
Re: [b-hebrew] Why Semitic languages had no written vowels?
, (continued)