שלום in Jeremiah 4:10

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
Jemoh66
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: שלום in Jeremiah 4:10

Post by Jemoh66 »

aavichai wrote:Hi Jemh66
What I said was partly to continue bolstering my argument that causative is a tool for generative a broad range of meanings, which are further clarified by context
You are right

And the way to see the Hiphil is a long long talk because like you say it can be understood in way more than one way


The word Exiles as you said: it is meant Exiled people?
Exiles means a plural noun?

If so, then the Hebrew will use the participle גולים
or even nicer בני גולה
even though, when they are in Tel Aviv they are no longer exiled
but שבי הגולה
those who rerun from the excile

the adjective "Exiled" with a plural suffix (or just singular) that contains also a noun (people) or any other subject
like exiles means - exiled people
is strange in English, right?

like you can't say
he saw olds
instead of old men

right? or i'm mistaken?

In Hebrew you can use the adjective to be a noun
like
he saw זקנים
or he saw זקן
without sayin the word man

the only word i know in english that can act that way is the News
the news - is an adjective that contains the noun (reports)
like i saw the news - means i saw the new reports

am i right about that?

or that the exiles means soething else?
You're correct. There are some examples of this kind of thing though but they are specialized words, they are not generic. When we describe a woman we might say "that brunette" or "the blond" but I think this is inherited from French, and in French one would say "la blonde" not "la blonde femme" because it would be redundant since "la blonde" is feminine.

As for "I saw the news," No, Americans don't feel the word news as a plural. It's just news, in the some way that we say milk. You can drink a little milk or a lot of milk, you can read some news or immerse yourself in the news of the day.
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: שלום in Jeremiah 4:10

Post by kwrandolph »

Jemoh66 wrote:tsk tsk Karl, that's not nice. It's Ezekiel 3:2,
I know. But I didn’t look up the correct passage until just seconds before I read your posting.

Unfortunately, it looks as if I touched a raw nerve, so I don’t intend to answer the posting right after yours.

Actually, that passage concerning the eating goes from 2:8 – 3:3 with אכל being a simple active except for this one time. That indicates that Ezekiel, in his vision, was the active agent.

Karl W. Randolph.
Last edited by kwrandolph on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: שלום in Jeremiah 4:10

Post by kwrandolph »

aavichai wrote:the "eating" verb is continous action
Every action has a duration, and is continuous during that duration. Therefore duration is not an argument.

Looking at the context of the total passage, we find a Qal imperative in Ezekiel 2:8, and Qals again in 3:1 and 3:3. This is not a “fed” which is placing food before a person or an animal, rather it is compelling to eat a particular object “he caused me to eat”.

The basic verbal root is Qal (except where the verb is derived from a noun) and the other binyanim induce variations on the action expressed in Qal. In translation, sometimes a different word in English fits, sometimes not. This is particularly true with Hiphils.

For example, the Hiphil of “to come” is usually best translated as “to bring”. But there are times in English where it is appropriate to say “He caused me to come” which is the translation of the Hiphil.

So likewise, the Hiphil of “to eat” is not automatically “to feed”, rather sometimes the correct translation is “to cause to eat”. From the context, I read this as one of those cases.

Karl W. Randolph.
S_Walch
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: שלום in Jeremiah 4:10

Post by S_Walch »

I know you're replying to numerous persons at once, Karl, so please bear with me as I continue to do so myself :)
kwrandolph wrote:Seriously, I’ve become a lot more sensitive to spellings and the meanings that they imply over the last few years. It’s given me more respect for the consonantal text and a recognition that it’s pretty accurate. But when the text gets pretty hairy, I’m not above checking the DSS and other sources for alternate readings. I’m very wary of any “corrections” where there’s no attestation to back them up.
Agreed. You know that I also don't care for the Masoretic points, and will happily look for another explanation if I don't think they've got it right.

You'll also know that I consult the DSS and LXX often, and have no trouble pointing to them as having the correct text for us to go off.
We can make a S-O-V word order in Greek without changing the meaning, we can do that in Hebrew without changing the meaning, but we can’t do that in English, because changing the word order changes the meaning.
Ah, this is my fault for not explaining what I was actually doing in the word order change: my main point was to show that had ... committed was the translation of the same verb in English; just that in the case of 'having' or 'causing someone/thing to do something', English can't, unlike other languages, have the direct/accusative object in the final place in the sentence. 'had ... committed' therefore is active voice, past tense in English - it isn't both active and passive, as it has a direct object that is neither part of, nor owned, by the subject. This can only really be active - it wouldn't, as far as I can see, come under the definition of 'middle'
Isn’t what you call “middle” really reflexive, which in Hebrew would take the Hitpael?

My understanding of reflexive is neither passive nor middle, rather active, with the subject being both the initiator and beneficiary of the action.
A reflexive understanding is one of the many functions of the Greek middle. Though in the case of a truly reflexive action, Greek would actually employ an active verb with a reflexive pronoun - the middle wouldn't necessarily be used, but it could be.
What I understand as “middle” is something different from reflexive and has a definite passive aspect to its action.
Smyth's breakdown of the Greek Middle will probably explain it better than I'm doing - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... tion%3D104

Though, see next comment before perusing the page above. It highlighted something I've missed :)
Herod caused John the Baptist to be beheaded. “to be beheaded” is passive. “Caused” is active. Hence the middle because it has both active and passive in the same verbal construct. In English we have the active and passive separated out through the use of helper verbs. Hebrew doesn’t have helper verbs, so indicates the middle through subject—passive verb—object. That’s how I understand this construct.

As for Hiphil, it doesn’t have the passive—I don’t see how it would work.

......

I call it “middle passive” not knowing what else to call it, because it’s using a passive verb, with an active element in the action.
What is pertinent, is from Smyth #1725:

1725. The Causative Middle denotes that the subject has something done by another for himself

Herein lies our answer: One could argue that the hophal denotes the causative middle, even though it isn't 'passive', as in, the action of the verb isn't performed on the subject, but for the subject.

This however would also be applied to the active voice, as Smyth has in 1711:
1711. Causative Active.—The active may be used of an action performed at the bidding of the subject: Κῦρος τὰ βασίλεια κατέκαυσεν Cyrus burnt down the palace (i.e. had it burnt down) X. A. 1.4.10. So with ἀποκτείνειν put to death, θάπτειν bury, οἰκοδομεῖν build, παιδεύειν instruct, ἀνακηρΰττειν publicly proclaim.

So in essence, this could apply to both qal and hiphil, and niphal and hophal.

In the sentence Herod caused John the Baptist to be beheaded, both 'caused' and 'to be beheaded' are active, in that they have an object in which the verb is being performed on (John the Baptist) - if 'to be beheaded' were passive, then this would mean that it was Herod that was being beheaded, and not John the Baptist (passive voice has to only affect the subject - it can't be a passive affecting the object).

In Matt 14, we would have an example of what Smyth denotes in 1711 - a causative active.

We do have the middle passive though (see Smyth 1733), but again, this affects the subject only, and not an object, and is intransitive rather than transitive, which would be required in Lev 9:17 methinks :)
Ste Walch
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: שלום in Jeremiah 4:10

Post by kwrandolph »

S_Walch wrote:I know you're replying to numerous persons at once, Karl, so please bear with me as I continue to do so myself :)
No problem (at least I think it’s no problem).

It looks like we have agreement on that nature of the text, which is what I expected.
S_Walch wrote:
kwrandolph wrote:We can make a S-O-V word order in Greek without changing the meaning, we can do that in Hebrew without changing the meaning, but we can’t do that in English, because changing the word order changes the meaning.
Ah, this is my fault for not explaining what I was actually doing in the word order change: my main point was to show that had ... committed was the translation of the same verb in English; just that in the case of 'having' or 'causing someone/thing to do something', English can't, unlike other languages, have the direct/accusative object in the final place in the sentence. 'had ... committed' therefore is active voice, past tense in English - it isn't both active and passive, as it has a direct object that is neither part of, nor owned, by the subject. This can only really be active - it wouldn't, as far as I can see, come under the definition of 'middle'
This brings me back to grade school days when we had to parse sentences. So in the sentence, “Herod caused John to be beheaded” Herod is the subject, caused in English is the main verb, it is active, John to be beheaded is an object phrase with its own subject and verb, where John is the subject and to be beheaded is a passive verb (in infinitive because it’s the verb of a dependent clause).

This is both active and passive in the same sentence, which is why I call it middle.

Biblical Hebrew has a completely different grammar. Herod is still the subject, but the main verb is passive be beheaded with the English main verb cause indicated merely by a conjugation of the Hebrew verb, and John the grammatical object that received the passive action. Harod the subject caused the passive action.

This is my understanding of the Hophal when it’s used as a transitive verb.

Where the Hophal is used as an intransitive verb, it’s a pure binary passive where the subject receives the action.

Medieval to modern Hebrew has a grammar that differs significantly from Biblical Hebrew, which is why people brought up on modern Hebrew will have such a difficult time understanding Biblical Hebrew. That difference in grammar is why the Masoretes pointed so many Hophals as Hiphils,
S_Walch wrote:[skip a lot of Greek grammar]…In the sentence Herod caused John the Baptist to be beheaded, both 'caused' and 'to be beheaded' are active, in that they have an object in which the verb is being performed on (John the Baptist) - if 'to be beheaded' were passive, then this would mean that it was Herod that was being beheaded, and not John the Baptist (passive voice has to only affect the subject - it can't be a passive affecting the object).
Not in English, see the parsing above.

I thought you did a pretty good job of explaining the grammatical questions in your previous posting. :)

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: שלום in Jeremiah 4:10

Post by kwrandolph »

Dear Avichai:

Too bad you don’t know English that well.
aavichai wrote:Moses-caused-aharon-To-be------dressed
noun---verb---noun---To-verb----noun/adjective


The word that comes after the "TO BE" is not a verb at all
but an adjective
English doesn’t have a special form to indicate the passive. To compensate for the lack of a passive form, English grammaticalizes the passive by making a compound verb comprised of a form of “to be” + past tense of the verb to be considered passive. It must be the past tense of a verb. In your example above, “dressed” is the past tense of a verb, therefore “to be dressed” is a passive grammaticalization of “to dress”.
aavichai wrote:Hi Karl, you said that:
"Every action has a duration, and is continuous during that duration. Therefore duration is not an argument"

I will clarify myself…
Sorry, but I found your clarification as clear as mud. I don’t see how it leads to any conclusion.

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: שלום in Jeremiah 4:10

Post by kwrandolph »

Dear Avochai:

I hate to be blunt, but your answer below is nonsense and self-contradictory.
aavichai wrote:
English doesn’t have a special form to indicate the passive. To compensate for the lack of a passive form, English grammaticalizes the passive by making a compound verb comprised of a form of “to be” + past tense of the verb to be considered passive. It must be the past tense of a verb. In your example above, “dressed” is the past tense of a verb, therefore “to be dressed” is a passive grammaticalization of “to dress”.
No man

This how you used to see it as an English speaker

Everytime you (and everyone) use that form of "be dressed"
it used as a compound in an automatic way
Of course! I’m a native speaker of English. Not only that, but also an educated and careful user of my native tongue. So what I wrote above concerning English is accurate. We are discussing the English language and its accurate usage here.

The only reason to discuss the accurate usage of English on this forum is because we are using English to discuss the linguistics of a dead language (a language no longer natively spoken) that doesn’t have the terminology within itself to express linguistic ideas.
aavichai wrote:But the truth is, that this compund is created by a (grammaratical) passive verb which is the adjective syntaxly

And it is not a "past verb" but a passive verb
This contradicts what you wrote previously.
aavichai wrote:tense has nothing to do with it
“Past tense” refers to the form of the verb, not necessarily to the time when the action occurs. We had a linguist from SIL who came on this list and corrected us on the use of the word “tense” to refer to verbal conjugations. This is why I now refer to past, present and future actions for languages that don’t conjugate for point time.
aavichai wrote:because this "TO" demends an active verb after it (always an active one)
Nope. Not when “to” when used as the marker for an infinitive is followed by a compound verb indicating passive.
aavichai wrote:The English uses "BE" as an active verb that leads to the passive one
Another contradiction.
aavichai wrote:you can use this DRESSED even in a nominal clouse (sentence with no verbs)

He is dressed
“Is” is a verb.

“Be dressed” is not the best example, because it can also be used as a stative, referring to the state of wearing clothes. I knew that at the time I wrote my explanation of the passive above. I expected my statement to be taken in the context of “Moses caused Aaron to be dressed” as it was used in Torah to describe an action, the passive of that action, and not a state.
aavichai wrote:So goodbye
and i'm sorry if i hurt someone or disrespected someone
espcially Karl

Bye
Sorry to see you go.

This forum was set up for give and take, where we discuss and learn from each other. I have learned from others on this list and expect to continue to learn. Further, discussions have helped me understand myself. I thank others on this list for that help.

I think you could also benefit from other discussions if you stayed.

Karl W. Randolph.
Jemoh66
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: שלום in Jeremiah 4:10

Post by Jemoh66 »

Thanks Ste Walch,

What a fantastic resource. I found this quote of interest:
1728. Differences between Active and Middle.—As contrasted with the active, the middle lays stress on the conscious activity, bodily or mental participation, of the agent.

In verbs that possess both active and middle: βουλεύεσθαι deliberate, βουλεύειν plan, σταθμᾶν measure, σταθμᾶσθαι calculate, σκοπεῖν look at, σκοπεῖσθαι consider, ἔχεσθαι cling to, παύεσθαι cease (1734. 14). The force of the middle often cannot be reproduced in translation (ἀκούεσθαι, τι_μᾶσθαι, ἀριθμεῖσθαι, ἀπορεῖσθαι), and in some other cases it may not have been felt, as in ὁρᾶσθαι in poetry (προορᾶσθαι occurs in prose).
I think when we come across a Hithpa'el or a Niph'al, we need to consider all the different kinds of nuances that a middle voice can bring to the table of options.
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: שלום in Jeremiah 4:10

Post by Isaac Fried »

Jonathan writes,
"I think when we come across a Hithpa'el or a Niph'al, we need to consider all the different kinds of nuances that a middle voice can bring to the table of options."

Says I,
Some Hebrew examples would be of the greatest help.

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

Re: שלום in Jeremiah 4:10

Post by Jemoh66 »

Karl,

you wrote,
Biblical Hebrew has a completely different grammar. Herod is still the subject, but the main verb is passive be beheaded with the English main verb cause indicated merely by a conjugation of the Hebrew verb, and John the grammatical object that received the passive action. Harod the subject caused the passive action.

This is my understanding of the Hophal when it’s used as a transitive verb.
This is where I disagree. A stative root in the Hiphil can accomplish this. That was my argument about KBD, which is a stative verb. 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. 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.

I do agree with you about the fuzziness in the Binyanim. I am reading a fascinating 57 page paper right now (I'll put it in a separate post) which gives a really good explanation for the oddities we see in BH verb usage.
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
Post Reply