Jonathan:
Yes, in the Qal, we deal with stative verbs, but Hiphil conjugation (it is a conjugation, not a separate lexical item) changes the stative verb to an active verb. We mustn’t ignore the effect that conjugations have on verb meanings.
Jemoh66 wrote:You're confusing the resulting meaning of the hiphil form with the meaning of the root in the qal. Yes a hiphil is always active. And a hophal is passive. But the hiphil can be the causative of a stative root
hikhbid, cause to be heavy, harden.
It appears to me that we have different focus as we analyze these actions. I focus on the action itself, which is active, while you focus on the result of the action, which is stative. I don’t forget that the result of the action is a stative, but I look at the action before us, not the down the road result which is stative.
Jemoh66 wrote:or the causative of an active root.
הֹודִעֵ֤נִי נָא֙ אֶת־ דְּרָכֶ֔ךָ, cause me to know yours ways.
Both of these could be used as hophals in different contexts.
This verse’s construction, Exodus 33:13, is an interesting one in that you have the verb ידע (an action) in the causative passive with two objects, a direct object and an indirect object. As far as I found it, this construct is only found written by people who were native speakers of Biblical Hebrew, the latest person to use it was Ezekiel.
This hiphil is also well attested in Biblical Hebrew.
Jemoh66 wrote:For example in our discussion of Exodus 8-9, I was open to a hophal in one particular place if the subject were the heart,
In English, it’s clear that heart is the subject of the dependent clause, and the subject of the passive verb.
But English separates out the causative from the verb, and puts it into a separate clause. That way we can analyze each part separately. Biblical Hebrew combines the causative and passive into one conjugation, then uses syntax to express the same idea in one clause where English uses two clauses.
Now in Exodus 8:11, there’s no question that the heart is the subject of the causative passive. There’s no other noun connected with the verb.
In a verse like Exodus 8:15, we have two nouns connected with the verb. The form of the verb could be Qal, Niphal, Hophal, but not Hiphil. (That I left out Piel and Pual is another discussion.) In Qal and Niphal, the verb is stative. We have established that stative verbs become active when conjugated as Hiphil or Hophal. In this verse, do we deal with a stative “heart is hard” or the active “heart become hardened”? If stative, then the verb is Qal or Niphal. If active, then it is Hophal. So is this verb’s use in this verse stative, or active? Was the heart hard, or did it become hard? I read the context that the heart became hard, an action, not a stative.
You take this as a defective spelling for the Hiphil, most likely a copyist error. If this were the only example, I’d be inclined to agree with you that this is a copyist error. But there are several such verbs conjugated as Hophals, but have two nouns connected with them, so either we deal with many copyist errors, or do we deal with a grammatical and/or syntactical construct not described in our Hebrew textbooks?
Jemoh66 wrote: not Pharaoh. In the second example above I could see Moses elsewhere using a hophal and saying something like, I was caused to know the ways of the LORD.
Before today, I hadn’t noticed the Hophal connected to two objects. Right off the first reading, it appears to be the form of “cause it to be known by me” or something similar.
Jemoh66 wrote:Jemoh66 wrote:
And it's why I am not inclined to see a Hophal in that one case because the Hiphil of a stative is sufficient, and sits well in the syntax of the phrase, while the Hophal called for too many ad hoc exceptions to the rule.
“Ad hoc” means that each case is different, unique. But what I find is that there’s a consistent pattern that can be used each time to come to the same conclusion. A consistent pattern indicates that we’re dealing with a rule, not exceptions to a rule. This is just the opposite of “ad hoc”.
Jemoh66 wrote:Are you sure you deal with Hophals? After all, in Yiqtol, the Qal, Niphal, Piel, Pual, and Hophal are all conjugated the same. The only way to find which is which, is the context.
That was my point. The context rules out a hophal in that one particular case for the reasons I gave.
How? See above. I see the context as limiting our options to Hophal or copyist error.
Jemoh66 wrote:Jemoh66 wrote:
Just as you are using beheaded, although you're seeing it as a passive. Certainly beheaded can be seen as a passive as well as a stative. The passive refers to the process while the stative refers to a final state. So in John and Herod's case I could agree to a passive as opposed to a stative, but not with KBD. Kaved/kavad means to be heavy, or become heavy. In the hiphil hikhvid, the S causes the O to become heavy, grow heavy.
It appears that you agree with me.
A stative refers to a constant state, without change.
But in the Hiphil, we find a change in status, which is an action. Where there’s action, there’s no stasis.
Partly,
1. I would just say state, not constant state. One can be happy one moment and sad the next, as a result of a hiphil for example
You’re right, I overstated my case. What I mean is a state that is not changing at that time.
Jemoh66 wrote:2. the hiphil of a stative root results in a change of state. You could cause someone to be sad, or cause something to be broken. The causation is an active process, but the result is a state. Verbs of movement are similar, this is why in Archaic English, we read I am come, not I have come. Even today in French, Dutch, and German, movement verbs require be as their auxiliary. Je suis venu, ik ben gekomen,...
That construct for verbs of motion is limited to what has historically been greater Germany. That includes France (even the name “France” is German). When French speaking invaders took over England, they tried to impose that pattern onto English, but it didn’t take. Places outside of greater Germany, such as Scandinavia, didn’t have that pattern.
Getting back to Hebrew: in Biblical Hebrew, I see a pattern of using the Hophal causative where the causative is active, but the action is still passive. As such, the verb is conjugated according to the subject of the active causative, but the action is applied as a passive upon the object of the verb. It’s a pattern, not ad hoc. Therefore, I’m ready to say that here we have a grammatical and/or syntactical rule.
Karl W. Randolph.