שלום in Jeremiah 4:10

[Jemoh66]

.

I can understand why you don’t want to think of Jeremiah accusing God of deception but if you take that as implying tolerance that doesn’t seem to apply. The NET Bible explains their interpretation this way, “The Hiphil of נָשָׁא (nasha’, “to deceive”) is understood in a tolerative sense here: “to allow [someone] to be deceived.” IBHS 446 §27.5c notes that this function of the hiphil describes caused activity that is welcome to the undersubject, but unacceptable or disagreeable to a third party. Jerusalem and Judah welcomed the assurances of false prophets who deceived them. Although this was detestable to God, he allowed it.”
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy

I would like to see other examples of this use of the Hiphil. I had never heard of it before you mentioned it in this discussion. Unless this use applies also to the Hophal, it doesn’t apply to Jeremiah 4:10 as the consonantal text, according to your reading, is Hophal, not Hiphil. So if you can show some examples where there’s no question that we deal with Hiphils, that would be appreciated.

Right now, my understanding of the Hiphil as causative doesn’t allow for this use of the Hiphil. That’s why I ask for more examples. If there are no other examples, then that’s a good reason to reject it here too.

I also don’t take translations into English as evidence. I saw their claim here, but as I asked of you above, I need to see more examples in Hebrew in order to agree with it.

Yours, Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,
Could you articulate your understanding of the Hiphil. From my experience, English speakers don't fully grasp the causative use of a verb. I suspect that you have a narrow view of what it means to say "causative" and don't fully appreciate the nuance in native usage. This is not an attack, just a personal observation. I have found that most of my fellow students have a difficult time with the semantics of the causative.

I speak Swahili with a native feel for the language. When you use a causative in afro-asiatic languages, it is rarely adequate to translate it literally. Let me throw in some examples:
lala v. lie down --> lala+za (causative suffix) = laza lit. cause to lie down; usage/translation: to admit someone to hospital. Digression: mostly used in the passive. laza+wa (passive suffix)=lazwa, example: amelazwa hospitalini, he has been admitted to hospital. Native speakers don't think the person was forced to lie down or any such thing, they just understand it as admittance.

shuka come down --> shuka+sha (caus. suf.) = shukisha or shusha. When you let someone out of your car you cause him to come down, i.e. you drop him off. Again, no one is forcing you to get out of the car, you are being "allowed" to get out of the car. Causation here is permissible, not forceable. The verb shusha expresses the abstract idea humiliating someone. So here you have the physical picture of causing someone to come down, which in turn refers to the idea of humiliating them.

BH is the same, causative forms can express abstract ideas and permissibility among other things. It's very broad in application and very useful, as it allows a language with limited roots a virtual limitless semantic expansion. A great example of that is Psalm 23:2, בִּנְאֹ֣ות דֶּ֭שֶׁא יַרְבִּיצֵ֑נִי. The awkward translation he makes me to lie down betrays a lack in the English language to adequately express what David means here. Let me add just one more example from Swahili: kula v. to eat --> kula+sha = kulisha, to feed (lit. cause to eat); but kunywa v. to drink --> kunywa+sha = kunywesha, here there is no English equivalent so the translator will have to supply a phrase, to give someone to drink. Maybe in the right context this might be waterboarding.

Sincerely,
Jonathan

[kwrandolph]

Dear Jonathan:

Karl,
Could you articulate your understanding of the Hiphil.…BH is the same, causative forms can express abstract ideas and permissibility among other things. It's very broad in application and very useful, as it allows a language with limited roots a virtual limitless semantic expansion. A great example of that is Psalm 23:2, בִּנְאֹ֣ות דֶּ֭שֶׁא יַרְבִּיצֵ֑נִי. The awkward translation he makes me to lie down betrays a lack in the English language to adequately express what David means here.

I think we need to go back one more step, to Hebrew thought patterns.

Time and again, I noticed that ancient Hebrews seemed to expect people to read between the lines and fill in what the writers didn’t make explicit, This is especially true in poetry. To use your example of Psalm 23:2, in order for the causative to have effect, the writer assumes that the reader fills in that the shepherd brings the sheep to green pastures, which in spring meant bringing the sheep up to mountain meadows. The sheep will lie down anyways. The causative part is that the lying down is on green pastures.

Most of the time, the hiphil indicates a direct causation of an action.

A second aspect of the causative is the passive use of the causative—that causes a situation to come up that leads to a certain outcome, without specifying the specifics of that action. For example, God will cause a city to be destroyed, but doesn’t specify how—whether by war, earthquake, abandonment, or whatever. Like the example above, God doesn’t directly cause the destruction, rather causes the action that leads to the destruction. This is the hophal use of the causative.

It’s been decades since I last read according to the Masoretic points, but I suspect that the second paragraph is where we find many of the hophals that are pointed as hiphils.

Can you please explain what you mean by abstract?

I don’t see a permissive use of the causative. Just because a permissive use may have been found in other afro-asiatic languages, doesn’t mean that the permissive use is found in Hebrew. I haven’t found it, and a one-time use out of thousands of uses sounds like a forced interpretation to fit an ideological position rather than a linguistic principle.

As for your examples from Swahili, those look like examples of where forms and/or words have been repurposed to refer to ideas different from what they originally meant. That happens in all languages, especially, as in the cases you cited, that people are called on to refer to actions or objects that previously didn’t occur or use the terms in idioms.

Is my explanation clear, or do you have more questions?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

Dear Jonathan:

Karl,
Could you articulate your understanding of the Hiphil.…BH is the same, causative forms can express abstract ideas and permissibility among other things. It's very broad in application and very useful, as it allows a language with limited roots a virtual limitless semantic expansion. A great example of that is Psalm 23:2, בִּנְאֹ֣ות דֶּ֭שֶׁא יַרְבִּיצֵ֑נִי. The awkward translation he makes me to lie down betrays a lack in the English language to adequately express what David means here.

I think we need to go back one more step, to Hebrew thought patterns.

Time and again, I noticed that ancient Hebrews seemed to expect people to read between the lines and fill in what the writers didn’t make explicit, This is especially true in poetry.

This is not an ancient Hebrew thing, it's universal. A better way to put this would be to speak of cultural/linguistic background information. If I write a cute limerick about "making B-Hebrew great again," everyone in my contemporaneous audience will get the reference, and will appreciate the humor in it.

To use your example of Psalm 23:2, in order for the causative to have effect, the writer assumes that the reader fills in that the shepherd brings the sheep to green pastures, which in spring meant bringing the sheep up to mountain meadows.

You have the wrong idea about how a causative is used. It does not "have an effect." It's just a way of producing meaning. The "effectiveness" of David's phrase has nothing to do with the causative form of the verb, it has everything to do with the picture produced in the mind of his contemporaneous readers/hearers of being like cattle who are led about by a shepherd and brought to a meadow, something quite readily common to Ancient Israelite life. An Ancient Israelite does not consciously appreciate the supposed causation in the building of the word. Most often the word is already a part of one's vocabulary and simply refers to a particular meaning, which in turn gets more meaning in given contexts. If you'll permit me to use a Saussurian expression: you have a word which he would call a signifier, and the referent which he would call the signified. When I say, "that woman is breastfeeding her child," a Swahili speaker would say, "that woman is causing her child to suck." The English phrase and the Swahili phrase, are different signifiers, but the signified is ONE and the same. The causative form in Swahili does not have any "effect" on the Swahili mind.

What is particularly fascinating as I read through this Psalm in Swahili, is how much closer the Swahili rendering is to Hebrew than the English is, no doubt because African culture is still so very close to Ancient Hebrew culture, and this still shows in the language. The following verbs are all causative forms in Swahili: makes me lie down (the same verb used to admit someone to hospital), leads me (just like BH, causes me to look in a direction), restores (causes my soul to vivify).[/quote]

The sheep will lie down anyways. The causative part is that the lying down is on green pastures.

?

Most of the time, the hiphil indicates a direct causation of an action.

1. A causative does not imply direct causation, it can imply a whole series of events, our present Psalm is a case in point. יַרְבִּיצֵ֑נִי encompasses all that is involved in getting the sheep to the pasture. And as you put it the sheep naturally eat then lie down to ruminate.
2. A causative can result in an action, a state, or a state of mind.

A second aspect of the causative is the passive use of the causative—that causes a situation to come up that leads to a certain outcome, without specifying the specifics of that action. For example, God will cause a city to be destroyed, but doesn’t specify how—whether by war, earthquake, abandonment, or whatever. Like the example above, God doesn’t directly cause the destruction, rather causes the action that leads to the destruction.

This would be better expressed as a stative not a passive. A good example of this would be וְהַכְבֵּד֙ (Ex 8:15), but he hardened... lit., he caused his heart to be heavy. Here Kaveed is a stative verb that is used in the Hiphil, which results in another way to express to harden

This is the hophal use of the causative.

I haven't studied this in depth, but from my understanding the hophal is just the passive form a hiphil verb. So the verb would get its meaning in the hiphil and then one would understand that the form was passive, meaning the subject was the victim/patient of the verb. So by analogy He fed me would be a Hiphil, while I was fed would be a Hophal.

been decades since I last read according to the Masoretic points, but I suspect that the second paragraph is where we find many of the hophals that are pointed as hiphils.

Can you please explain what you mean by abstract?

I don’t see a permissive use of the causative. Just because a permissive use may have been found in other afro-asiatic languages, doesn’t mean that the permissive use is found in Hebrew. I haven’t found it, and a one-time use out of thousands of uses sounds like a forced interpretation to fit an ideological position rather than a linguistic principle.

As for your examples from Swahili, those look like examples of where forms and/or words have been repurposed to refer to ideas different from what they originally meant. That happens in all languages, especially, as in the cases you cited, that people are called on to refer to actions or objects that previously didn’t occur or use the terms in idioms.

Is my explanation clear, or do you have more questions?

Getting late, I'll answer the rest tomorrow, thanks

Karl W. Randolph.[/quote][/quote]

[Kirk Lowery]

#mb-hga !!

[kwrandolph]

Dear Jonathan:

I think we need to go back one more step, to Hebrew thought patterns.

Time and again, I noticed that ancient Hebrews seemed to expect people to read between the lines and fill in what the writers didn’t make explicit, This is especially true in poetry.

This is not an ancient Hebrew thing, it's universal. A better way to put this would be to speak of cultural/linguistic background information. If I write a cute limerick about "making B-Hebrew great again," everyone in my contemporaneous audience will get the reference, and will appreciate the humor in it.

To use your example of Psalm 23:2, in order for the causative to have effect, the writer assumes that the reader fills in that the shepherd brings the sheep to green pastures, which in spring meant bringing the sheep up to mountain meadows.

You have the wrong idea about how a causative is used. It does not "have an effect." It's just a way of producing meaning.

I think you misunderstand me here. As far as I can tell, your response is using different terms to say the same thing.

The "effectiveness" of David's phrase has nothing to do with the causative form of the verb, it has everything to do with the picture produced in the mind of his contemporaneous readers/hearers of being like cattle who are led about by a shepherd and brought to a meadow, something quite readily common to Ancient Israelite life. An Ancient Israelite does not consciously appreciate the supposed causation in the building of the word. Most often the word is already a part of one's vocabulary and simply refers to a particular meaning, which in turn gets more meaning in given contexts. If you'll permit me to use a Saussurian expression: you have a word which he would call a signifier, and the referent which he would call the signified. When I say, "that woman is breastfeeding her child," a Swahili speaker would say, "that woman is causing her child to suck." The English phrase and the Swahili phrase, are different signifiers, but the signified is ONE and the same. The causative form in Swahili does not have any "effect" on the Swahili mind.

Put yourself in the place of a lexicographer, if you were to list verbs, would you list them separately according to binyanim, or would you list them under one root with the binyanim maybe not even listed but recognized as giving nuances to the meaning to the main verb? In the same manner as tense gives nuances to meaning of English verbs?

What is particularly fascinating as I read through this Psalm in Swahili, is how much closer the Swahili rendering is to Hebrew than the English is, no doubt because African culture is still so very close to Ancient Hebrew culture, and this still shows in the language. The following verbs are all causative forms in Swahili: makes me lie down (the same verb used to admit someone to hospital), leads me (just like BH, causes me to look in a direction), restores (causes my soul to vivify).

In Biblical Hebrew, the only verb in these two verses that is causative is ירביצני, all the others are Kal or Piel. Context leads me to say that they are all Piels with that one exception.

Most of the time, the hiphil indicates a direct causation of an action.

1. A causative does not imply direct causation, it can imply a whole series of events, our present Psalm is a case in point. יַרְבִּיצֵ֑נִי encompasses all that is involved in getting the sheep to the pasture. And as you put it the sheep naturally eat then lie down to ruminate.

No. It’s not the Hiphil that encompasses all that is involved, rather it is a literary style used also with other binyanim, here used with a Hiphil.

2. A causative can result in an action, a state, or a state of mind.

Depends on how you understand “action”.

A second aspect of the causative is the passive use of the causative—that causes a situation to come up that leads to a certain outcome, without specifying the specifics of that action. For example, God will cause a city to be destroyed, but doesn’t specify how—whether by war, earthquake, abandonment, or whatever. Like the example above, God doesn’t directly cause the destruction, rather causes the action that leads to the destruction.

This would be better expressed as a stative not a passive. A good example of this would be וְהַכְבֵּד֙ (Ex 8:15), but he hardened... lit., he caused his heart to be heavy. Here Kaveed is a stative verb that is used in the Hiphil, which results in another way to express to harden

This is a good example of a Hophal verb incorrectly pointed as a Hiphil.

Back the first few times I read Tanakh through, trying to follow assiduously the Masoretic points, the many places where the pointing and consonantal text differed bothered me. Now I just ignore the points, too many of them are wrong.

Again I see this as an action. Whereas before pharaoh’s heart was not hard, afterwards it was hard, the action is that it was hardened. The hardening is an action, a changing.

This is the hophal use of the causative.

I haven't studied this in depth, but from my understanding the hophal is just the passive form a hiphil verb. So the verb would get its meaning in the hiphil and then one would understand that the form was passive, meaning the subject was the victim/patient of the verb. So by analogy He fed me would be a Hiphil, while I was fed would be a Hophal.

Do you have a better example? “To feed” is רעה in Qal, and “to be fed” is expressed using the Niphal form.

Like you, I basically view the Hophal as a passive of the Hiphil.

Getting late, I'll answer the rest tomorrow, thanks

OK, thanks.

#mb-hga !!

Can you translate to English? I’ve never seen this before.

Karl W. Randolph

[Kirk Lowery]

Kirk Lowery wrote:

#mb-hga !!

Can you translate to English? I’ve never seen this before.

One of the hash tags used by the Trump election campaign was #maga "Make America Great Again". Responding to Jonathan's cultural reference, can you figure out my hash tag?

[kwrandolph]

Kirk Lowery wrote:

#mb-hga !!

Can you translate to English? I’ve never seen this before.

One of the hash tags used by the Trump election campaign was #maga "Make America Great Again". Responding to Jonathan's cultural reference, can you figure out my hash tag?

Thanks. I’m a classic case of he who laughs last, has the joke explained to him.

I’m not familiar with hash tags, I never saw #maga before, and I don’t have a Twitter account (I’ve heard that that’s where they’re used), so …

Thanks again, Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

Kirk Lowery wrote:


Can you translate to English? I’ve never seen this before.

One of the hash tags used by the Trump election campaign was #maga "Make America Great Again". Responding to Jonathan's cultural reference, can you figure out my hash tag?

Thanks. I’m a classic case of he who laughs last, has the joke explained to him.

I’m not familiar with hash tags, I never saw #maga before, and I don’t have a Twitter account (I’ve heard that that’s where they’re used), so …

Thanks again, Karl W. Randolph.

Haha, this threw me as well. Well played! Kirk.

[kwrandolph]

There is no והכבד in Ex 8:15
in there it has ויחזק לב פרעה in Qal

הכבד is in verses 11 and 28
8:11
וירא פרעה, כי היתה הרוחה, והכבד את-לבו, ולא שמע אלהם
8:28
ויכבד פרעה את-לבו, גם בפעם הזאת; ולא שלח, את-העם

In this cases it cannot be Hof'al

The forms יכבד and יחזק are forms shared by Qal, Niphal, Piel, Pual, and Hophal. Contextual clues are needed to recognize which binyan is used.

The form הכבד as a form is Hophal, passive.

first of all, the context and the other conjugations of the other verbs are active and not passive, so the verb הכבד keeps it active - all actions by Pharaoh

Not necessarily—pharaoh could have been caused to harden his heart, a passive.

second, even if we look at it out of its context and we want to see it as Hof'al
as if His heart was hardened, there is a problem

The heart cannot be the subject in this case
no subject can be with a prefix את
it means that in this case, if we want to see it as Hof'al
ויכבד פרעה את לבו
that פרעה himself was hardened and not the heart
and then we have את לבו that we cannot understand it - how does it connect to the senrence

In these cases we have causative passives of a transitive verbs. As transitive verbs, they have their own objects, but their subjects are acted upon.

The same with וירא פרעה... והכבד את לבו
it is regular Hiphil

Nope.

You gave more examples of hophals pointed as hiphils.

Just my 2¢.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

I want to clarify a thing that I said and correct myself
I said:

"no subject can be with a prefix את"

There is very rare occasions (less than 10) when it is found, and it is probably to emphasize or another reason (some can argue for more reasons)

In Ezekiel, Nehemiah,Jeremiah and 2Samuel

Like I said, this cases are rare and seem odd and of course they don't represent the commmon and basic rules of the biblical hebrew syntax


for example:

Jeremiah 36:22
והמלך, יושב בית החרף, בחדש, התשיעי; ואת-האח, לפניו מבערת

Nehemiah 9:34
ואת-מלכינו שרינו כהנינו ואבתינו, לא עשו תורתך

Are you sure that these aren’t examples of את meaning “with”? The consonantal text allows for that reading.

Karl W. Randolph.