Hebrew verb theories

[Isaac Fried]

In the above post, the second reference is to Num. 16:32. I am also noticing a slide of the internal dots in the Hebrew words.

I have just observed that Exod. 1:22 כל הבן הילוד היארה תשליכהו is translated (the KJV) as "Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river", whereas it should be, methinks, "Every son that is born ye shall cast HIM into the river" since TA$LIYKUHU = TA+$L+IY+K+U+HU, is with a last הוא HU, 'he', that is referring again to the born son.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jemoh66]

Isaac,

The -HU does refer to the son, but it is not a self-standing word; it is an agreement marker, in this case, an Object Agreement Marker. It has to be there in Hebrew, but it is awkward and redundant in English. Now if Moses had fronted the phrase with אתו, we could translate "Him you shall cast" or "the same you shall cast." If you say the phrase תשליכהו with no context, that would translate to "you shall cast him," but only because the pronoun him is understood. (תשליכהו (אתו. Here the -hu suffix is an agreement marker whose referent is an understood oto

Jonathan Mohler

[Jemoh66]

normansimonr wrote:
NIFAL
*Num 16: 31 (The ground under them split open)


Where’s the evidence that this is Niphal? The consonantal text and context says Qal.

Karl,

the verb split in Ps 78:13 is not the same as the verb split in Num 16:31. In Ps 78:13, the verb is transitive and demands on object. The verb in Num 16:31 is intransitive, and cannot take an object; the subject "the earth" is the experiencer of the verb. In Ps 78:13 the subject is an agent. The Niphal is the only binyan capable of handling this meaning. The Qal is appropriate in the psalm because the verb is transitive. In Num 16:31 the verb might have taken a stative form Pa'el but this would mean something like "the earth was splittable." As for whether the BAQA( in the psalm is a Piel, maybe the Masoretes connected it to the iterative idea stemming from the plurality of the rocks. For that matter maybe the writer did too, and the Masora is preserving the original authors version.

Jonathan Mohler

[kwrandolph]

The expression vertical relationship comes from Longacre. In his 1978 article, "Why We Need a Vertical Revolution in Linguistics," he discusses how essential it is to study the context, i.e. the discourse itself. He builds on groundbreaking work by Pike. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xiy3c9ozu8plu ... s.pdf?dl=0

Here's his thesis:
"It is not simply that systematic analysis and study of units larger than the sentence is possible, nor even that such analysis is desirable, but rather that discourse analysis is a rock bottom necessity, i.e., all linguistic structure must ultimately be related to the structure of context."

Jonathan Mohler

According to this article, does it mean that I’ve been practicing discourse analysis all along for decades without knowing what the term means? I merely called it “reading in context”. While doing lexicography, I occasionally would read up to a chapter to establish the context for a single term, while not uncommonly reading a few verses before and after. The purpose was not only to get the linguistic context, but also the personal motives of the speaker, or writer. I once noted that I used the term “context” more than all other people on this forum put together. But the term “discourse analysis” turned me off. I still prefer the term “context”.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

normansimonr wrote:
NIFAL
*Num 16: 31 (The ground under them split open)

Where’s the evidence that this is Niphal? The consonantal text and context says Qal.

Karl,

the verb split in Ps 78:13 is not the same as the verb split in Num 16:31. In Ps 78:13, the verb is transitive and demands on object. The verb in Num 16:31 is intransitive, and cannot take an object; the subject "the earth" is the experiencer of the verb. In Ps 78:13 the subject is an agent. The Niphal is the only binyan capable of handling this meaning. The Qal is appropriate in the psalm because the verb is transitive.…

Jonathan Mohler

Is this verb necessarily a transitive verb? Or can it be used intransitively?

In English there are verbs that can be used both transitively and intransitively, why not also in Biblical Hebrew?

Listowski lists it as a verb some 50+ times, even the form *תבקע (the * indicates a wild card, can have extra letters) is found ten times, which can mean either 2nd person, or third person feminine, in Qal, Niphal, Piel or Pual.

In 1 Kings 1:40 it’s used figuratively to indicate the loudness of the noise, recognizably a Niphal because the agent listed.

In 2 Kings 2:24 3rd person feminine Qal.

In 2 Kings 8:12 2nd person masculine Qal.

Etc.

In Jeremiah 52:7 the agent is not listed, but the previous verses, the context, gives the agent so the verb is Niphal.

I haven’t yet analyzed all 50 uses of the verb, just a quick overview, but my question remains, is it necessarily a transitive verb? What about Exodus 14:21? Isaiah 48:21, 58:8, 59:5? Hosea 14:1?

Isaiah 35:6 Niphal as intransitive.

Jeremiah 39:2 Hophal with the context of the surrounding verses giving the agent.

In Ezekiel 13:11 is the storm wind being broken or breaking? In the context of verse 13 looks like it’s breaking.

To return to Numbers 16:30–34, we find the earth treated as if it were an active agent, though we really know that God is the active agent behind the scenes. So, to fit the context, is the earth the active agent in verse 31 with תבקע as an intransitive Qal, or is it a passive Niphal?

On a similar note, recently I have been questioning the role of the passive in Biblical Hebrew. Is it really always a hard passive as we think in English or other Indo-European languages, or is it softer, sometimes a middling course? An example possibly being to indicate an intransitive use of a normally transitive verb?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jemoh66]

The expression vertical relationship comes from Longacre. In his 1978 article, "Why We Need a Vertical Revolution in Linguistics," he discusses how essential it is to study the context, i.e. the discourse itself. He builds on groundbreaking work by Pike. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xiy3c9ozu8plu ... s.pdf?dl=0

Here's his thesis:
"It is not simply that systematic analysis and study of units larger than the sentence is possible, nor even that such analysis is desirable, but rather that discourse analysis is a rock bottom necessity, i.e., all linguistic structure must ultimately be related to the structure of context."

Jonathan Mohler

According to this article, does it mean that I’ve been practicing discourse analysis all along for decades without knowing what the term means? I merely called it “reading in context”. While doing lexicography, I occasionally would read up to a chapter to establish the context for a single term, while not uncommonly reading a few verses before and after. The purpose was not only to get the linguistic context, but also the personal motives of the speaker, or writer. I once noted that I used the term “context” more than all other people on this forum put together. But the term “discourse analysis” turned me off. I still prefer the term “context”.

Yes in fact, linguists are prefersays the "structure of context," not "context."
Karl W. Randolph.

Yes in fact, linguists are preferring the European term "Text Linguistics." This is better especially with BH because we can't interview the native speaker. Notice in the quote from Longacre above, he says the "structure of context," not "context." In his analysis of Joseph, Longacre discusses four discourse (text) types, each one preferring a particular verb form as its mainline verb. The mainline verb in BH narrative then is Wayyiqtol; the Wayyiqtols carry the narrative forward in time, while all other verb forms are "off-the-line" and do not carry the narrative forward on the timeline. In fact, he places the verb forms on a "cline" to show how far off the mainline each verb form is. In Proverbs 31:11-31 I see the Qatals on the mainline of the discourse, while Yiqtols and Wayyiqtols are off-the-line.

Jonathan Mohler

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan says
The -HU does refer to the son, but it is not a self-standing word; it is an agreement marker, in this case, an Object Agreement Marker.
Says I
A personal pronoun (PP) is, indeed, not self standing (unless in the mouth of my wife excitedly relating who she saw in the market, and what they were telling her.) Here it is, moreover, a redundancy; כל הבן הילוד היארה תשליכו would suffice.

Jonathan says
It has to be there in Hebrew, but it is awkward and redundant in English
Says I
It would be nice to carry over the spirit of the Hebrew into the English.

The word תשליכהו contains four PPs, with the three external ones having been possibly once-upon-a-time stand alone words that got attached to the verb, and were curtailed, by a spontaneous drive for higher fluency and brevity.
The fore TA of תשליכהו is apparently the PP אתה ATAH 'you', carried from the singular תשליך to the plural. But this requires a complement, which is added as the first aft U, short for הוא HU, to produce an ATU, corresponding to אנו ANU, 'we'.
The internal IY of תשליך TA-$L-IY-K, is a contracted היא HIY, referring, in my judgment, to the beneficiary of the act.
Spoken Hebrew has relinquished use of these attached כינויי הפעול and routinely spreads out the likes of תשליכהו as תשליכו אותו

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Isaac Fried]

Exodus 15:8
וברוח אפיך נערמו מים נצבו כמו נד נזלים קפאו תהמת בלב ים
KJV: "And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea."
is interesting. The two acts נערמו and נצבו are apparently cast in the Niphal form, but קפאו QAP'U, 'froze, hardened', is apparently Qal. Yet the beneficiary of the act QAPA is the sea itself, while the instigator of this act is the mover and shaker of all things small and big.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[normansimonr]

Well, so I have reached the idea that if I want to understand BH I'll have to rely greatly on heuristics. I can imagine the masoretes discussing their choices between Qal/Nifal pointings and so on, and while they might have been right, there's also a chance for being wrong on their part; so, I think I'll go for the pointed text, but won't stick to it too rigidly.

The lifespan of Biblical Hebrew was of several centuries, perhaps of 1000 years; that's longer than the lifespan of the English language, or even the Spanish language. So, trying to create a single set of grammar rules for that would be just like making a Grammar that covered both Victorian English and John Lennon's English, wouldn't it? It's been stuck in my mind that it could be very, very misleading to follow these theories being that it's like they were trying to equate the language of Cristopher Columbus with that of Shakira.

Now, perhaps the Nifal from Numbers isn't the same Niphal from Psalms, or the Qal from Ruth isn't the same Qal of Jeremiah. And the Qatal / participle / Yiqtol distinction should be nuanced by the dimension time. In Statistics, when doing linear regression the researchers always try to find new variables to 'control for' in order to be as consistent as possible and get a satisfactory correlation; maybe the lack of unanimity derives from being controlling for too few variables? As I said, I'm a complete beginner, so if you know of comparative studies that take time into account please let me know them.

I mean, if you have information about studies on "Verbal system in the book of Genesis", "Verbal system in the book of Exodus" and so on.

And that not to mention the 'space' dimension. Was there a dialectal difference between Northern Kingdom Hebrew and Southern Kingdom Hebrew as it is between the European languages and their American counterparts (English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch...)?

[Jemoh66]

Well, so I have reached the idea that if I want to understand BH I'll have to rely greatly on heuristics. I can imagine the masoretes discussing their choices between Qal/Nifal pointings and so on, and while they might have been right, there's also a chance for being wrong on their part; so, I think I'll go for the pointed text, but won't stick to it too rigidly.

1. I think they probably did have those kinds of discussions, but I also think that they were preserving a lot of earlier tradition as well.
2. I think that is a good approach to have toward the pointed text. I don't think it is wrong to question them, but I think we need to keep in mind that they were native speakers of their Hebrew, which gives them a tremendous edge on BH compared to us. We have two marks against us, we are 1000 years removed from them, and we are not native speakers of any Hebrew.

The lifespan of Biblical Hebrew was of several centuries, perhaps of 1000 years; that's longer than the lifespan of the English language, or even the Spanish language. So, trying to create a single set of grammar rules for that would be just like making a Grammar that covered both Victorian English and John Lennon's English, wouldn't it? It's been stuck in my mind that it could be very, very misleading to follow these theories being that it's like they were trying to equate the language of Cristopher Columbus with that of Shakira.

I have been taught that the Hebrew of the Chronicler is very close to Mishnaic Hebrew; so you make a valid point.

Now, perhaps the Nifal from Numbers isn't the same Niphal from Psalms, or the Qal from Ruth isn't the same Qal of Jeremiah. And the Qatal / participle / Yiqtol distinction should be nuanced by the dimension time. In Statistics, when doing linear regression the researchers always try to find new variables to 'control for' in order to be as consistent as possible and get a satisfactory correlation; maybe the lack of unanimity derives from being controlling for too few variables? As I said, I'm a complete beginner, so if you know of comparative studies that take time into account please let me know them.

It would be interesting if Niphal was first reflexive and reciprocal, then later passive. Isaac could boast that the ni- prefix is indeed from anochi or ani.

I mean, if you have information about studies on "Verbal system in the book of Genesis", "Verbal system in the book of Exodus" and so on.

There are studies by genre, such as narrative. Specifically Robert Longacre's Joseph, A text theoretical and textlinguistic analysis of Genesis 37 and 39-48.

And that not to mention the 'space' dimension. Was there a dialectal difference between Northern Kingdom Hebrew and Southern Kingdom Hebrew as it is between the European languages and their American counterparts (English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch...)?

Yes some linguists have done dialectical studies, and note that for example Elijah's speech seems influence by his Northern location as well as his non-Israelite neighbors.

Jonathan Mohler