Resources for Hebrew Morphology

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
HebrewLover
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:39 pm

Resources for Hebrew Morphology

Post by HebrewLover »

Hey everyone,

I'm wondering if there are any resources out there that lay down ALL (or nearly all) the rules to Hebrew morphology. If you don't know of one that covers the entire Hebrew language, how about one for verbs or nouns specifically?

-HL
Andrew Hodge
Mark Lightman
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:33 pm

Re: Resources for Hebrew Morphology

Post by Mark Lightman »

C. L. Seow's A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew pretty much covers every sound change, not only what occurs, but why it occurs. He does not treat morphology in a separate section, but covers it as he presents the grammar in an order designed for those learning to read the language.

A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar by Merwe, Naude, and Kroeze also covers the complete morphology of Biblical Hebrew, although again syntax and morphology are treated side by side topically rather than in separate sections.

I assume that there is a book out there that covers morphology in a separate section, if that is what you prefer, but I have not seen one.

Isaac Fried's The Analytic and Synthetic Etymology of the Hebrew Language doesn't deal much with morphology directly, but does contain a well-phrased minimalist insight into the subject:
"Hebrew often sacrifices rigid grammatical structure in favor of phonetic grace as long as meaning remains unaffected..." (ASEHL, p. 28)
Hebrew morphology is, of course, greatly simplified if we accept (as I think we should) Karl Randolph's skepticism about the Masoretic points.
Mark Lightman
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Resources for Hebrew Morphology

Post by Isaac Fried »

The entire science of Hebrew "Morphology" can be stated in one sentence. The Hebrew word is a root plus personal pronouns (identity markers.)

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Lee Moses
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:49 pm

Re: Resources for Hebrew Morphology

Post by Lee Moses »

Isaac Fried wrote:The entire science of Hebrew "Morphology" can be stated in one sentence. The Hebrew word is a root plus personal pronouns (identity markers.)
What about the different spellings across different binyanim/stems and the different conjugations?
HebrewLover
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:39 pm

Re: Resources for Hebrew Morphology

Post by HebrewLover »

Thank you! I went ahead and bought Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. It looks like it should be very helpful. :)

-HL
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Resources for Hebrew Morphology

Post by Isaac Fried »

The בנינים binyanim are verbal forms apparently disparately developed over space and time, then integrated into the main body of the language. They are being used now to impart an added shade of meaning to the act, for instance, The hif'il השתיק HI$TIYQ, 'silenced', versus the pi'el שיתק $IYTEQ, 'paralyzed'. I would dismiss as mere over-interpretation the often heard claim that the pi'el form implies a "stronger" manifestation of the act, for instance, שבר $ABAR, 'broke', versus שיבר $IYBER, 'smote to smidgens'.

In the pa'al form we have שברתי $ABARTIY = ABAR-ATIY, 'I broke', in which the personal pronoun אתי ATIY is a surviving archaic form for אני ANIY, 'I'. Indeed, for the "2nd person" it is שברת $ABAR-ATAH, 'you אתה broke'.
It is agreed now to see the verb augmented by a suffixed PP as indicating a past action. A verb augmented by a prefixed PP is accepted now as representing a future action, for instance, אני אשבור in which the E of E-$BOR is a shriveled ANIY, 'I'.

In the form שבור $ABUR, the U is the contracted internal PP הוא HU, 'he', for the object that is a broken = brok-en state.

In the nif'al form, say, נשבר NI-$BAR, the prefixed PP NI- is a concise אני ANIY, 'I, myself', used for all "persons".

The pi'el for, say, $IBER = $-I-B-E-R, contains the two internal PP היא HIY, 'he' (gender and number being irrelevant here), one for the performer of the act and the other for the beneficiary of the act.

The pu'al form contains the internal PP הוא contracted to a mere U, for the target of the act, say $-U-BR-U, 'they were broken'.

The התפעל HIT-PA-E-L form contains the PP needed to express the fact that the performer of the act is also its beneficiary.

The הפעיל hif'il form includes the two PP היא HIY, 'he' --- the external one for the performer of the act, and the internal, contracted to a mere -I- to avoid an extraneous consonant among the radical letters, for the target of the act.

The הפעל huf'al form contains the prefixed PP הוא HU, 'he', for the target of the act.

The form שברוני $BAR-U-NIY ends in the two PP הוא 'they', and אני 'I', to wit: 'they broke me'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Jemoh66
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: Resources for Hebrew Morphology

Post by Jemoh66 »

Isaac,

you wrote
The בנינים binyanim are verbal forms apparently disparately developed over space and time, then integrated into the main body of the language.
Languages are like a river, ever flowing always changing, but most importantly always a river. There is no such thing as a fetal language, that if time permits, grows up to be a language. Diachronic development notwithstanding, at any stage of a language history, that language can be shown to be a full eco-system of grammar. I am not discounting the idea altogether that the binyamin could have developed separately of time. However, it seems to me that no matter what stage of Hebrew one examines, the binyamin seemed to be a ready-made whole system. The Pa'al, Pi'el, and Pu'al, for instance, work effectively because they relate to each other. The Pi'el derives its function/meaning only in relation to the Pa'al. It seems to me they work together, as an irreducible complexity. The Pa'al functions as the UNMARKED binyan, while the other binyamin present MARKEDNESS.

Related to the above, you wrote
They are being used now to impart an added shade of meaning to the act, for instance, The hif'il השתיק HI$TIYQ, 'silenced', versus the pi'el שיתק $IYTEQ, 'paralyzed'. I would dismiss as mere over-interpretation the often heard claim that the pi'el form implies a "stronger" manifestation of the act, for instance, שבר $ABAR, 'broke', versus שיבר $IYBER, 'smote to smidgens'.
1. "to impart an added shade of meaning"
I don't think this is adequate; they impart more than a "shade" of meaning; they impart categories of meaning.
2. "The hif'il השתיק HI$TIYQ, 'silenced', versus the pi'el שיתק $IYTEQ, 'paralyzed'."
These English translations obscure the clarity of the Hebrew. They are not nuanced, but in fact different categories: "השתיק" is a CAUSATIVE, "cause to be quiet," while שיתק is an INTENSIVE
3. "I would dismiss as mere over-interpretation the often heard claim that the pi'el form implies a "stronger" manifestation of the act"
I agree, this is a very poor choice of words. The problem I find is that English is not ideal for explaining this category. Even my choice above of INTENSIVE needs elaboration. My knowledge of Afro-asiatic languages like Swahili give me a keener insight on the pi'el. Bantu languages have causative, stative, passive, and intensive forms, just like semitic languages. What the Pi'el does for Hebrew, GEMINATION does for Swahili. e.g.: kata, to cut; katakata, to slice. This is the kind of relation שיבר bears to שבר. If I drop a glass on the floor, I could say, "I broke the glass" ($ABAR), or "I shattered the glass" ($IBER). I'm not versed in BH enough to know, and someone on the forum could correct me, but as an educated guess, I think if you studied a reasonable set of Pa'al/Pi'el roots, you would find that the Pi'el is always a subset of the Pa'al.

I'll respond to the rest later,

Jonathan E Mohler
Springfield, MO
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Resources for Hebrew Morphology

Post by Isaac Fried »

Swahili kata, to cut; katakata, to slice, appears to me related to the post-biblical Hebrew קטע Arabic قطع 'slice'. From it קיטע KIYTEA, 'amputee'.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Mark Lightman
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:33 pm

Re: Resources for Hebrew Morphology

Post by Mark Lightman »

Jemoh66 wrote:There is no such thing as a fetal language, that if time permits, grows up to be a language.
You are certainly correct, Jonathan, that there is no evidence for anything like this. By definition, the pre-history of anything can only be constructed from assumptions and imagination. I think this is why Karl Randolph has advised against such speculations. I have suggested that the brilliance of Professor Fried's ASEHL is as a parody of the whole endeavor of "historical" reconstruction. He may even be spoofing the alleged macroevolution of language (and hence of other things.)
Mark Lightman
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Resources for Hebrew Morphology

Post by Isaac Fried »

Jonathan says
There is no such thing as a fetal language, that if time permits, grows up to be a language.

says I
It is not clear to me if the claim is for the present or for the past. I agree that there are no fetal (baby talk?) languages existing today (today!), all extant languages in use by man are undeniably either fully developed, or otherwise thoroughly wrecked and reconstructed.

Now enters theology. For those who hold to the belief that man was created instantaneously, to perfection, and master of the Hebrew language the issue is settled: there was never any "fetal" language. Those who believe that man evolved are less sure. Language is a foregone conclusion of intelligence. Once a certain threshold is exceeded some language is invariably bound to emerge. It stands to reason that if at some point in time man had no language, and at some later point he reached the intellectual level permitting it, then in-between there was something "fetal" ( of which we possibly have the single-consonant words אב, אם, אח, עם, איש, אש, אף, עז,
שה, עץ, עיר, אור, עול, אל, עש, חי, עב ).

Yet all this is irrelevant to the "synchronic" argument that the Hebrew word is a root augmented by personal pronouns PP. This theory, I am convinced, stands on its own merit.

Jonathan says
The Pa'al functions as the UNMARKED binyan, while the other binyamin present MARKEDNESS.

Says I
Saying that "The Pa'al functions as the UNMARKED binyan, while the other binyamin present MARKEDNESS" leaves matters vague if not opaque. Clearly, the other binyamin contain identity markers for the actors, both the initiators and the intended, participating in the performance of the said act; and this is what makes Hebrew such an overt and flexible language.

For instance, the pi'el formשִלַח $-I-LAX of Ex. 8:28( have omitted the dagesh in the letter L as it is irrelevant to the niqud, the mumblings about "gemination" notwithstanding) is with the internal PP היא curtailed to a mere -I-, and standing for the performer of the act $LX, 'send'. In the pu'al form שֻלַח$-U-LAX of Gen. 44:3 is with the internal PP הוא curtailed to a mere -U-, and standing for the target of the act $LX, 'send'. The same for נִשְלַח NI-$LAX, with the PP NI- for the person being sent. I agree that in today's usage NI-$LAX has a softer tone to it than $-U-LAX. Today, הִשְתַלֵחַ is used in the sense of 'lash out'.

Notice that there is a pa'al נִשְלַח NI-$LAX, with the PP NI- standing for אנו ANU, 'we', the performers of the act. Since the PP is prefixed, the act is considered as being yet but a mere promise or suggestion.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
Post Reply