Identifying stative verbs - maybe a difference between Basics of biblical hebrew/BBH and Groves Wheeler

A place for those new to Biblical Hebrew to ask basic questions about the language of the Hebrew Bible.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
ralph
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Identifying stative verbs - maybe a difference between Basics of biblical hebrew/BBH and Groves Wheeler

Postby ralph » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:48 am

Looking in basics of biblical hebrew (BBH), p.144,145 it lists some stative verbs.

gadal, chacham, cavaid, zakain, katon, yachol, katal, malai, raeiv

If I open bibleworks, searching the groves wheeler morphological index, to see which of those occur as adjectives.

I see the following

chacham, kavaid, zakain, katon , malai

I don't see

gadal, katal, yachol.

Any thoughts on why those three aren't listed as adjectives in groves wheeler's morphological index? Do you think groves wheeler isn't considering them as stative verbs? And if so, then are there different-differing ideas about how stative verbs are identified?

Regards

Jemoh66
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: Identifying stative verbs - maybe a difference between Basics of biblical hebrew/BBH and Groves Wheeler

Postby Jemoh66 » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:23 pm

There's several things at play here. (My thoughts only)
1. Stative verbs can be grouped into two groups depending on whether they are referring to an actual state viz. "to BE heavy..." or to the process that leads to a state viz. "to BECOME great" or just say "she grew in stature".
I think the first category is a true stative and is associated with the a-e pattern. Of course this could be manipulated by the writer/speaker through context or usage over time. Soi one might find it is being used as a second category (become).
I would venture to say that the a-a pattern tends toward category 2
2. A-O patterns are probably adjectival. The adjective is then verbalized. Katon little --> katon be/become little
Last edited by Jemoh66 on Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary

User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Identifying stative verbs - maybe a difference between Basics of biblical hebrew/BBH and Groves Wheeler

Postby SteveMiller » Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:22 pm

Ralph,
The forum rules require that we sign our posts with first and last name. You can do that once for all by putting it in your signature.

For gadal, the adjective form has a waw before the lamed.

How did you do your search in Bibleworks? thanks.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)

ralph
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Identifying stative verbs - maybe a difference between Basics of biblical hebrew/BBH and Groves Wheeler

Postby ralph » Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:25 am

Jemoh66 wrote:There's several things at play here. (My thoughts only)
1. Stative verbs can be grouped into two groups depending on whether they are referring to an actual state viz. "to BE heavy..." or to the process that leads to a state viz. "to BECOME great" or just say "she grew in stature".
I think the first category is a true stative and is associated with the a-e pattern. Of course this could be manipulated by the writer/speaker through context or usage over time. Soi one might find it is being used as a second category (become).
I would venture to say that the a-a pattern tends toward category 2
2. A-O patterns are probably adjectival. The adjective is then verbalized. Katon little --> katon be/become little


So if I understand you correctly, first you say there are two groups, then you think there are three groups of statives, but you initially wrote as if there are two, and the latter of them you thought wasn't truly stative, which contradicts the idea you stated about there being two or any groups of statives but taking 3 groups, since at one point you said there were 3, you seem to say A)that is truly stative / a-e / "to be", and B)not truly stative / a-o / "to become" / adjective. and C) in between A-O, somehow in between A and B, and probably an adjective...

Most of that you wrote is really convoluted and contradictory and doesn't sound right and doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm aware there are (according to BBH and perhaps others classify them as such too), patach statives, cholam statives, and tsere statives, that is in books and is what you are calling a-a, a-o, a-e.

Perhaps there is a slightly different nature between them, that is written about in some books, without the contradictions that are in your description.

But the distinction between patach statives, cholam statives and tsere statives doesn't seem relevant here.. For example,

chacham, patach stative
kavaid, tsere stative
zakain, tsere stative
katon , cholam stative
malai tsere stative

^^^ All those are in there, appearing as adjectives.

In fact, if I look in groves wheeler, (in bibleworks by typing DOT to enable me to then type the hebrew letters that form it e.g. chet chaf mem for the case of chacham, then @ then the popup helps to see the codes, then n *, for nouns, then trying instead @a* and seeing whether or not any are listed, to determine whether they appear as nouns or adjectives)

I see

chacham, patach stative appears as noun
kavaid, tsere stative appears as adjective
zakain, tsere stative appears as noun or adjective
katon , cholam stative appears as noun or adjective
yachol, cholam stative appears as neither
katal patach stative appears as noun
malai tsere stative appears as noun or adjective
raiev tsere stative appears as noun or adjective
tamai tsere stative appears as adjective

also one not mentioned by BBH but mentioned on hebrew4christians site, is

kadash patach stative appears as noun or adjective

So we see that it's possible for patach statives or tsere statives or cholam statives, to be adjectives..

And the three that don't appear as adjectives,

gadal, katal, yachol,

gadal and katal are patach statives, and yachol is cholam statives.

So I don't see what those categories of stative verb have to do with answering my question?

Ralph Zak

ralph
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Identifying stative verbs - maybe a difference between Basics of biblical hebrew/BBH and Groves Wheeler

Postby ralph » Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:27 am

ralph wrote:Any thoughts on why those three aren't listed as adjectives in groves wheeler's morphological index? Do you think groves wheeler isn't considering them as stative verbs? And if so, then are there different-differing ideas about how stative verbs are identified?


perhaps stative verbs(at least in the biblical hebrew sense of "stative verbs", ), are all those that can appear as either noun or adjective. (and of course i'm not talking about what is known in biblical hebrew books as participles).

Ralph Zak

Jemoh66
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: Identifying stative verbs - maybe a difference between Basics of biblical hebrew/BBH and Groves Wheeler

Postby Jemoh66 » Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:36 am

Ralph, you wrote
So if I understand you correctly, first you say there are two groups, then you think there are three groups of statives

No, you read my comments too quickly. There are 3 groups of vowel patterns, but only two categories of stativeness. So in trying to solve the issue I think we have to start by throwing more info into the mix and see what we can come up with by way of speculation and hypothesis.

As I said, you've presented us with 3 vowel patterns. I'm shooting from the hip at the time with my iphone, so when I see a-e, a-a, and a-o patterns, my instinct as to a-o is that this would be originally associated with an adjectival pattern, hence gadol, qaton, etc.. So I speculate that QATON is an adjective that with usage over time got verbalized. And it's only logical that an adjective would express stativeness when verbalized.

When you tackle BH, you tackle a language that spans 1000 years, so one of the elements of the problem is diachrony (evolution and usage over time). In the case of Stative verbs, diachrony seems to play a big part in the patterns. If memory serves Ross in his grammar mentions that some scholars believe the pael form is thought to have come from a pre-BH Qal Passive form. In BH it was largely replaced by Niphal.

As for why some words are not listed in Wheeler, who knows, maybe he missed them. Or maybe they are not found in the Biblical corpus.
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary

kwrandolph
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Identifying stative verbs - maybe a difference between Basics of biblical hebrew/BBH and Groves Wheeler

Postby kwrandolph » Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:39 pm

Ralph:

What you’ll find on this forum is the admission that Biblical Hebrew is not as well known as some would want to claim. Furthermore, the Masoretic points serve more to confuse and misdirect, than to elucidate what actually was the structure of Biblical Hebrew.

A quick aside about the Masoretic points: they were invented a millennium after Biblical Hebrew ceased to be a natively spoken language. Their pronunciations and often choice of grammar usages were based on Tiberian Hebrew, a non-natively spoken language heavily influenced by speakers whose native language was the Aramaic of their time. I know nothing specific about late Aramaic language, but I see that the Masoretic points are an unreliable source of knowledge about Biblical Hebrew.

In short, we don’t know how Biblical Hebrew was pronounced. All we can say for certain is that the pronunciations provided by the Masoretes is most likely wrong. Therefore, the answers to your questions will have to be derived by a study of the unpointed text of Tanakh. Can you think of any clues from the unpointed text that can give light onto your questions?

What exactly were “stative verbs”? Were they not a type of imperfective verbs? How were imperfective verbs formed in Biblical Hebrew?

I have come to the tentative conclusion that the imperfective was expressed by use of the Piel and Pual binyanim. However, most of the forms of the Piel and Pual are identical to the Qal, except participles. I noticed that the participles of Piel and Pual refer to situations where the actions are continuous or repeated. Therefore, are the stative ideas expressed by use of the Piel and/or Pual Binyanim?

I know nothing about Groves Wheeler. If his work is based on the Masoretic points, then it’s untrustworthy.

Instead of banging your head on what others say about Tanakh, just start reading Tanakh for yourself. Read it ten, twenty times, and then come back with these questions. After putting in the study, will you have better answers than my poor attempts above?

Just my 2¢.

Karl W. Randolph.

ralph
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Identifying stative verbs - maybe a difference between Basics of biblical hebrew/BBH and Groves Wheeler

Postby ralph » Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:31 am

ralph wrote:
ralph wrote:Any thoughts on why those three aren't listed as adjectives in groves wheeler's morphological index? Do you think groves wheeler isn't considering them as stative verbs? And if so, then are there different-differing ideas about how stative verbs are identified?


perhaps stative verbs(at least in the biblical hebrew sense of "stative verbs", ), are all those that can appear as either noun or adjective. (and of course i'm not talking about what is known in biblical hebrew books as participles).


I made an error earlier, Katal is not a stative..

also, to clarify.. Groves Wheeler doesn't give an indicator as to what is stative and what isn't, but it does list whether a root is appearing as a noun or adjective or verb (and if as a verb, then whether it's perfect or imperfect or cohortative or 'participle' e.t.c.).

and I can't see a pattern of all those appearing as noun or adjective, or all those appearing as adjective, e.t.c., to identify statives from groves wheeler, though i'm not trying to suggest any flaw with either groves wheeler or BBH, and I wouldn't even conclude that there is necessarily a difference.. as groves wheeler doesn't attempt to identify statives.

BBH does identify some statives but it's a small list and I was hoping for a long list.

Ralph Zak

ralph
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Identifying stative verbs - maybe a difference between Basics of biblical hebrew/BBH and Groves Wheeler

Postby ralph » Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:35 am

kwrandolph wrote:I have come to the tentative conclusion that the imperfective was expressed by use of the Piel and Pual binyanim. However, most of the forms of the Piel and Pual are identical to the Qal, except participles. I noticed that the participles of Piel and Pual refer to situations where the actions are continuous or repeated. Therefore, are the stative ideas expressed by use of the Piel and/or Pual Binyanim?

I know nothing about Groves Wheeler. If his work is based on the Masoretic points, then it’s untrustworthy.

Instead of banging your head on what others say about Tanakh, just start reading Tanakh for yourself. Read it ten, twenty times, and then come back with these questions. After putting in the study, will you have better answers than my poor attempts above?


Are there any books that take a systematic look at biblical hebrew, basing themselves on just letters, and not masoretic markings?

Jemoh66
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: Identifying stative verbs - maybe a difference between Basics of biblical hebrew/BBH and Groves Wheeler

Postby Jemoh66 » Sat Aug 26, 2017 6:29 pm

Stative is a type of Actionality, describing a class of activity inherent in a verb. Semantically, a verb denoting state, i.e., a stative verb, does not indicate change but does not exclude such a possibility (Actionality (Aktionsart): Pre-Modern Hebrew). These verbs describe a situation that requires no effort from the agent (for example, stative ‘hear’ versus non-stative ‘listen’; stative ‘know’ versus non-stative ‘learn’). Stative verbs may denote, among other things, attributes (‘be large’), mental states (‘love’) and physical states (‘sleep’).
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary


Return to “Beginners' Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest