Hi Karl,Well, I don't know what to call it. It is a methodology that I first
That's for you to decide. Personally, I don't hold to the principle that
there must be a "single, basic meaning that makes it easier to recognize
and appreciate non-standard uses." That is, I prefer to see prototypical
meaning, which is just that -- prototypical. Often it will equate to
your "single, basic meaning", but it doesn't have to.
So it's for you to decide how you choose what fits your "single, basic
meaning" and what doesn't. For the Hithpael, you seem to take the
single, basic meaning to be reflexive, so all the other uses I presented
have to some how be forced under this meaning rather than the
non-reflexive uses of the Hithpael simply seen for what they are:
non-reflexive uses.
.... Sure, there's conceptualisation happening here:Who are Waltke and O'Connor that I should listen to them? Before
"reflexive" is close to "reciprocal" and "grooming/body motion".
"Anticausative" seems to sit mid-way between "reflexive" and "passive",
but meaning can extend from "antipassive" to "generic passive" (cf
French "se") and also to "passive" (cf Russian "-sja"). So if a
reflexive morpheme etc extends its meaning to anticausative it can then
extend to generic passive and then to passive. If Waltke and O'Connor
are correct in their analysis, the Hithpael even can express passive. As
for the Niphal, it is perhaps debatable whether it is a true reflexive
(cf Steven W. Boyd, "A Synchronic Aanalysis of the
Medio-Passive-Reflexive in Biblical Hebrew" [PhD diss., Hebrew Union
College, 1993], but it certainly is used to express middle and passive
functions, neither of which, for me, can successfully be attributed to a
single, basic meaning of "middle" or "passive".
Regards,
David Kummerow.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.