Piel and Pual verbal structures

[Isaac Fried]

Karl W. Randolph says
I suspect that the Piel and Pual binyanim refer to repeated and/or continuing action

I doubt it and I will keep doubting it until I see a convincing example to the contrary. One needs to be careful about embellishing the biblical text with extraneous readings and flights of fancy based on some doubtful "grammar".
Pual is but a root with the PP הוּא, 'he', inserted between the first and second radicals to refer the action to the one (הוּא) benefiting from it.
See, for example, Gen. 44:3
הַבֹּקֶר אוֹר וְהָאֲנָשִׁים שֻׁלְּחוּ הֵמָּה וַחֲמֹרֵיהֶם
NIV: "As morning dawned, the men were sent on their way with their donkeys"
with שֻׁלְּחוּ = ש-הוּא-לח-הוּא in which the last הוּא is added to expand the firs הוּא into a plural.
In the שְלוּחָה = של-הוּא-ח-היא, 'shoot', of Isaiah 16:8
כִּי שַׁדְמוֹת חֶשְׁבּוֹן אֻמְלָל גֶּפֶן שִׂבְמָה בַּעֲלֵי גוֹיִם הָלְמוּ שְׂרוּקֶּיהָ עַד יַעְזֵר נָגָעוּ תָּעוּ מִדְבָּר שְׁלֻחוֹתֶיהָ נִטְּשׁוּ עָבְרוּ יָם
NIV: "The fields of Heshbon wither, the vines of Sibmah also. The rulers of the nations have trampled down the choicest vines, which once reached Jazer and spread toward the desert. Their shoots spread out and went as far as the sea."
the internal הוּא is for the thing having the property שלח, and with the last היא added for gender.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

The PP הוּא for the person(s) benefiting from the act may appear in front of even the first radical, as in הוּטְלוּ and הֻשְׁלְכוּ of Jer. 22:28
מַדּוּעַ הוּטְלוּ הוּא וְזַרְעוֹ וְהֻשְׁלְכוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדָעוּ
NIV: "Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know?"

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[R.J. Furuli]

Isaac Fried wrote:

Karl W. Randolph says
I suspect that the Piel and Pual binyanim refer to repeated and/or continuing action


I doubt it and I will keep doubting it until I see a convincing example to the contrary. One needs to be careful about embellishing the biblical text with extraneous readings and flights of fancy based on some doubtful "grammar".

Dear Isaac,

I agree with you that Piel and Pual do not refer to repeated and continuing action. My experience is that Piel very often represents events that are resultative—an action has reached its end, and the resultant state is made visible. All actions except instantanous ones are continuing, so we need no grammatical category to express that. Repeated actions can be expressed lexically, or they can be expressed by semelfactive (instantaneous) verbs and the imperfective aspect.

We should keep in mind that the binyanim are objective features, they signal something new, for example passive, resultative, reflexive, and causative features. The aspects on the other hand are subjective features, they do not signal sanything new, but they make visible a part of what already is there. However, the combination of an aspect with words of different characteristics, can create new information. I use some English examples, because they are easy to grasp:

1) Tim has knocked at the door.
2) Tim was knocking at the door.
3) Rita has reached the peak.
4) Rita was reaching the peak.

Example 1) represents the English perfective aspect. Details are not visible, so we do not know whether Tim knocked one or several times.
Example 2) represents the imperfective aspect, and the combination of this aspect with a semelfactive verb (to knock) causes an iterative interpretation.
Example 3) represents the perfective aspect, and only the end of the action is made visible.
Example 4) represents the imperfective aspect. Because we expect that progressive action is made visible with this aspect, the interpretaition must be that Rita was on the point of reaching the peak, but had not yet reached it.

In Hebrew there are a great number of examples showing that wayyiqtol represents the imperfective aspect: conative, ingressive, progressive, egressive, and resultative events are expressed by wayyiqtol. In my doctoral dissertation there are more than 200 examples of this. The English imperfective aspect can only make visible progressive action.


Best regards,

Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway

[Isaac Fried]

R.J. Furuli wrote
We should keep in mind that the binyanim are objective features, they signal something new, for example passive, resultative, reflexive, and causative features

I agree, but only to a limited extent. What we call now binyanim for verbs and mishqalim for nouns, are, in my opinion, no more than roots with personal pronouns variously distributed and interspersed among the radical letters.
The various distributions were not consciously designed for meaning, but are rather the result of Hebrew having been historically developed differently and variously at different places and at different times.
For some reason some verbs are used in one binyan and not in another, for instance, שִקֵּר, 'told a lie', or שִלֵּם, 'paid'. Other times, language seized upon the availability of the various equivalent binynim to shift meaning into needed new words, say, זרק, 'cast away', but, הִזְרִיק, 'injected'. Or, שתק, 'was silent', but שִתֵּק, 'paralyzed'.
The often heard claim that שבר is 'broke', but שִבֵּר is 'smashed to pieces', is in my opinion, nothing but an idle indulgence in a literary fantasy.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

R.J. Furuli wrote
In Hebrew there are a great number of examples showing that wayyiqtol represents the imperfective aspect: conative, ingressive, progressive, egressive, and resultative events are expressed by wayyiqtol.

How to construe the meaning of certain Hebrew word forms is certainly a prerogative of the reader, and it may well depend on his literary flair and power of imagination. Who am I to actually stand in his way to doubly enjoy the reading of the Hebrew Tanakh.
If one prefers to imagine in Ex. 9:25
וַיַּךְ הַבָּרָד בְּכָל אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׂדֶה מֵאָדָם וְעַד בְּהֵמָה וְאֵת כָּל עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה הִכָּה הַבָּרָד וְאֶת כָּל עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה שִׁבֵּר
the trees of the field all hacked up and blown to pieces, so let it be.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

R.J. Furuli wrote
In Hebrew there are a great number of examples showing that wayyiqtol represents the imperfective aspect: conative, ingressive, progressive, egressive, and resultative events are expressed by wayyiqtol. In my doctoral dissertation there are more than 200 examples of this.

Some actual Hebrew wayyiqtol examples would go a long way towards helping explain all these claims. It is not easy to argue with sweeping generalities and abstractions.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

R.J. Furuli wrote
In Hebrew there are a great number of examples showing that wayyiqtol represents the imperfective aspect: conative, ingressive, progressive, egressive, and resultative events are expressed by wayyiqtol.

How to construe the meaning of certain Hebrew word forms is certainly a prerogative of the reader, and it may well depend on his literary flair and power of imagination. Who am I to actually stand in his way to doubly enjoy the reading of the Hebrew Tanakh.
If one prefers to imagine in Ex. 9:25
וַיַּךְ הַבָּרָד בְּכָל אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׂדֶה מֵאָדָם וְעַד בְּהֵמָה וְאֵת כָּל עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה הִכָּה הַבָּרָד וְאֶת כָּל עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה שִׁבֵּר
the trees of the field all hacked, choped and blown to itsy bitsy pieces, so let it be.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[R.J. Furuli]

Isaac Fried wrote:

I agree, but only to a limited extent. What we call now binyanim for verbs and mishqalim for nouns, are, in my opinion, no more than roots with personal pronouns variously distributed and interspersed among the radical letters.
....
The often heard claim that שבר is 'broke', but שִבֵּר is 'smashed to pieces', is in my opinion, nothing but an idle indulgence in a literary fantasy.

Dear Isaac,

I have never done a detailed study of the origin of the morphology of the binyanim. But I understand that this is one of your areas of expertice. So I can only rely on you.

The reason why I say that the binyanim are objective properties, is that the meaning of a verb are different in the different binyanim. We can see this in Koehler/Baumgartner. This means that each stem gives objective information about the action of the verb. Aspects in contrast do not give any new information, but each Hebrew aspect makes visible a part of the information that already is there. Thus, the aspects are subjective viewpoints.


Best regards,


Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway

[R.J. Furuli]

Isaac Fried wrote:

R.J. Furuli wrote
In Hebrew there are a great number of examples showing that wayyiqtol represents the imperfective aspect: conative, ingressive, progressive, egressive, and resultative events are expressed by wayyiqtol. In my doctoral dissertation there are more than 200 examples of this.


Some actual Hebrew wayyiqtol examples would go a long way towards helping explain all these claims. It is not easy to argue with sweeping generalities and abstractions.

Dear Isaac,

In many cases, it is not possible to see which side of the action a wayyiqtol makes visible. Therefore, we need examples where we on the basis of the context or of our knowledge of the world can understand what is made visible. Here comes a few examples indicating that the wayyiqtols represent the imperfective aspect:

CONATIVE. EXODUS 8:14:

וַיַּעֲשׂוּ־כֵ֨ן הַחַרְטֻמִּ֧ים בְּלָטֵיהֶ֛ם לְהוֹצִ֥יא אֶת־הַכִּנִּ֖ים וְלֹ֣א יָכֹ֑לוּ
And the magic-practicing priests tried to do (wayyiqtol) the same by their secret arts, in order to bring forth gnats, but they were unable (qatal).

The text explicitly says tha the priests were not able to bring forth gnats. Therefore, the wayyiqtol is conative. This means that a portion before the beginning of an event is made visibe; RT intersects ET before the beginning.

INGRESSIVE 1 Kings 6:1:

וַיְהִ֣י בִשְׁמוֹנִ֣ים שָׁנָ֣ה וְאַרְבַּ֣ע מֵא֣וֹת שָׁנָ֡ה לְצֵ֣את בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֣ל מֵאֶֽרֶץ־מִצְרַיִם֩ בַּשָּׁנָ֨ה הָרְבִיעִ֜ית בְּחֹ֣דֶשׁ זִ֗ו הוּ֚א הַחֹ֣דֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י לִמְלֹ֥ךְ שְׁלֹמֹ֖ה עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיִּ֥בֶן הַבַּ֖יִת לַיהוָֽה׃
And it happened (wayyiqtol) in the 480th year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt…Solomon… began to build (wayyiqtol) the house of Yehowa.

Our knowledge of the world tells us that it took more than one year to build the temple. Therefore, the beginning and a small part of progressive action is made visible; RT intersects ET at the beginning, and the situation is ingressive.

PROGRESSIVE 2 Samuel 16:13:

וַיֵּ֧לֶךְ דָּוִ֛ד וַאֲנָשָׁ֖יו בַּדָּ֑רֶךְ ס וְשִׁמְעִ֡י הֹלֵךְ֩ בְּצֵ֨לַע הָהָ֜ר לְעֻמָּת֗וֹ הָלוֹךְ֙ וַיְקַלֵּ֔ל וַיְסַקֵּ֤ל בָּֽאֲבָנִים֙ לְעֻמָּת֔וֹ וְעִפַּ֖ר בֶּעָפָֽר׃
With that David and his men kept going (wayyiqtol) on in the road, while Shimei was walking (participle) on the side of the mountain, walking abreast of him that he might call down evil (wayyiqtol); and he kept throwing stones (wayyiqtol) while abreast of him, and he threw (qatal) a lot of dust.

While David and his men continued to go, Shimei was walking on the other side and kept throwing stones. RT intersects ET in the middle of the acts of going and throwing stones, and progressive action is made visible.

EGRESSIVE Genesis 47:29:

וַיִּקְרְב֣וּ יְמֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֘ל לָמוּת֒
Gradually the days were approaching (wayyiqtol) for Israel to die (infinitive).

The RT intersects ET immediately before its end, and egressive action is seen; the days were progressing towards the end.

RESULTATIVE Joshua 7:6:

וַיִּקְרַ֨ע יְהוֹשֻׁ֜עַ שִׂמְלֹתָ֗יו וַיִּפֹּל֩ עַל־פָּנָ֨יו אַ֜רְצָה לִפְנֵ֨י אֲר֤וֹן יְהוָה֙ עַד־הָעֶ֔רֶב
At this Joshua was ripping (wayyiqtol) his mantles and fell (wayyiqtol) upon his face to the earth before the ark of Yehowa until the evening.

The end of the action of falling upon his face to the earth was completed, and the resultant state of Joshua lying on the earth until the evening is made visible by the wayyiqtol. Thus, RT intersect ET after the end of the action and in the resultant state,


Best regards,


Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway

[Isaac Fried]

Rolf J. Furuli wrote
Here comes a few examples indicating that the wayyiqtols represent the imperfective aspect

Thanks. Great examples. I love good examples. But I still have some questions.
In the statement from Genesis 47:29
וַיִּקְרְבוּ יְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָמוּת וַיִּקְרָא לִבְנוֹ לְיוֹסֵף
KJV: "And the time drew nigh that Israel must die: and he called his son Joseph"
NIV: "When the time drew near for Israel to die, he called for his son Joseph"
you call וַיִּקְרְבוּ = בא-היא-קרב-הוּא "egressive", but is not the sluggishness of the approach but a pragmatic manifestation of the fact that days don't jump ahead of the line?
I find it interesting that KJV renders the initial WA- as "and", while NIV prefers to translate it as "when".

Is not the next "resultative" example from Jos. 7:6
וַיִּקְרַע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שִׂמְלֹתָיו וַיִּפֹּל עַל פָּנָיו אַרְצָה
KJV: "And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face"
NIV: "Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground"
also pragmatic since to our understanding of "life" Joshua could not tear his garments and fall down at the same time. The order in the narrative reflects the order of events: first tear, then fall. It is also not in the nature of things (the pragma) that falling down on one's face is completed as soon as the forehead hits the ground?

Isaac Fried, Boston University