DENOMINAL Verbs
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 1 A–F General Editor Geoffrey Khan Associate Editors Shmuel Bolokzy Steven E. Fassberg Gary A. Rendsburg Aaron D. Rubin Ora R. Schwarzwald Tamar Zewi LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 Table of Contents Volume One Introduction ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Contributors ............................................................................................................ ix Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... xiii Articles A-F ......................................................................................................................... 1 Volume Two Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Articles G-O ........................................................................................................................ 1 Volume Three Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Articles P-Z ......................................................................................................................... 1 Volume Four Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Index ................................................................................................................................... 1 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 704 denominal verbs: modern hebrew can only be determined by the context of its from Medieval Hebrew) needs to be reexam- .åyan< in qal means ined in light of the criteria discussed above≠ ָﬠ ַין usage. The biblical verb ַו ְי ִ֥הי ָשׁ ֖אוּל ֵעוֹי֣ ן) ’to eye with hostility, hate‘ wa-yhì šå< ±ùl ≠òyèn ±Æμ-dåw< ì≈ ‘So Saul References ֶא ָת־דִּ ֑וד eyed David’ [1 Sam. 18.9]), while in Rabbinic Bacher, Wilhelm. 1896. Sepher haschoraschim: Wur- zelwörterbuch der hebräischen Sprache von Abul- iyyen in pi ≠el means ‘to walîd Merwân Ibn Ganâh< (R. Jona), Aus dem≠ עיין Hebrew the verb read carefully, peruse attentively’. The mean- Arabischen in’s Hebräische u˝ bersetzt von Jehuda ings of the two verbs are not motivated by the Ibn Tibbon. Berlin: Meqitze Nirdamim. verbal pattern, and could in fact just as well Barukhi, Nurit. 2000. “Pe≠alim gezure šem bi-lšon ha-Miqra: Be™anim lešoniyim—Be™inat ha-pe≠alim have been reversed. A denominal verb may še-nigzeru mi-šemot šel ±evre guf” (in Hebrew). thus denote any action at all that is associated MA thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. in any way with the noun from which it is Bolozky, Shmuel. 1978. “Word formation strategies derived. in the Hebrew verb system: Denominative verbs”. Afroasiatic Linguistics 5:1–26. Because of the unpredictable nature of the Dérenbourg, Joseph and Mayer Lambert (eds.). 1894. semantic connection between a denominal verb Version arabe des Proverbes, surnommés Livre de and its noun, the category called ‘privative’ la recherche de la sagesse de r. Saadia ben Iosef al- (opposite meanings) that has been attributed to Fayyoûmi (= Oeuvres complètes de R. Saadia ben Iosef al-Fayyoûmi, vol. 6). Paris: Leroux. pi ≠el when contrasted with verbs from the same GKC = Kautzsch, Emil (ed.). 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew root in another binyan (see, for example, GKC grammar. Trans. by Arthur E. Cowley. Oxford: §52h) is in fact non-existent. Usually fewer than Clarendon. Kassovsky, Ofra. 1982. “Denominative verbs in ten examples of this kind are cited, not enough Israeli Hebrew” (in Hebrew). MA thesis, Bar-Ilan to establish a semantic category. Indeed, this University. semantic relation is merely a minor aspect of Mamam, Aharon. 2004. Comparative Semitic philol- the denominals, and does not depend at all ogy in the Middle-Ages: From Sa‘adiah Gaon to Ibn Barùn (10th–12th c.). Leiden / Boston: Brill. on the binyan, but derives directly from the ——. 2009. “Philology in Andalus, 950–1223: An semantic nature of this kind of verb. Take, for overview”. Iberia Judaica 1:85–117. hišriš ‘to strike Moreshet, Menahem. 1981. A lexicon of the new השריש example, the verb pair šereš ‘to uproot’, about which verbs in Tannaitic Hebrew. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan שירש root’ and University. it has been said that the pi ≠el form imposes the Schwarzwald (Rodrigue), Ora. 2000. “The root of negative meaning (of ‘uprooting’ in this case) the verb and the relation of noun to verb” (in on the root. In fact, nothing makes this binyan Hebrew). Raphael Nir jubilee book: Studies in more likely to possess a negative meaning than communication, linguistics and language teach- ing, ed. by Ora R. Schwarzwald, Shoshana Blum- any other; this specific meaning is just one of Kulka, and Elite Olshtain, 426–438. Jerusalem: many possibilities. Many different operations Carmel. can be performed with and on a plant’s roots, ——. 2009. “Three related analyses in Modern Hebrew morphology”. Egyptian, Semitic and gen- including planting and uprooting, and it is only eral grammar, ed. by Gideon Goldenberg and Ariel by pure chance that the negative meaning has Shisha-Halevy, 277–301. Jerusalem: The Israel become attached to the pi ≠el form. Academy of Sciences and Humanities. The declarative meaning we saw above is Wilensky, Michael and David Téné (eds.). 1964. Se er ha-Riqma le-Rabbi Yona Ibn Janà be- also only one of the semantic aspects of denom- ƒ ™ targumo ha-≠Ivri šel R. Yehuda ibn Tibbon. 2nd edition. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew ְו ִה ְצ ִ ֙דּי ֙קוּ ֶא ַת־ה ַצּ ִ֔דּיק ְו ִהְר ִ ֖שׁיעוּ inalization. Thus in .wë-hißdìqù ±Æμ-haß-ßaddìq wë-hiršì ≠ù Language ֶא ָת־הָר ָ ֽשׁע ±Æμ-hår< åš< å< ≠ ‘they shall justify the just and con- Aharon Maman demn the wrong-doer’ (Deut. 25.1) the mean- (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) ing is that the judges determine whether the accused is innocent or guilty, a meaning that does not depend on whether the denominal Denominal Verbs: Modern verb is in pi ≠el or in hif ≠il. Hebrew The list of denominal verbs in pre-modern Hebrew that Kassovsky compiled from dic- Denominal verbs are verbs which are derived tionaries and other sources (230 from Biblical from nouns or adjectives (henceforth: bases or siben סיבן < ’sabon ‘soap סבון Hebrew, 288 from Rabbinic Hebrew, and 248 base words), as in © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 denominal verbs: modern hebrew 705 tilfen ‘to 2. The distribution of stem טילפן < ’telefon ‘phone טלפון ,’to soap‘ ximem ‘to consonants חימם < ’am ‘hot≥ חם phone’, and heat’. Regardless of whether the base word is native or borrowed, all denominal verbs fit into Denominal verbs and their corresponding bases the binyan system ( Binyanim). have one of several types of structural rela- tions, with respect to the distribution of the 1. The BINYAN of denominal stem consonants. The most common type is a verbs one-to-one correspondence (Table 2a), where each consonant in the verb corresponds to one The binyan (verb template) of denominal verbs consonant in the base. In the two other types is usually pi≠el, whose productivity has been the verb stem has one consonant more than the attributed to the relative simplicity of its mor- base word. In the reduplication type (2b), two pho-logical and morpho-phonological structure. identical consonants in the verb correspond to As shown in Table 1, pi≠el is the only Hebrew one consonant in the base, while in the inser- binyan which neither possesses a derivational tion type (Table 2c), a consonant in the verb prefix (morphological simplicity) nor exhibits (II-y/v) has no counterpart in the base. a different prosodic structure in the past and The preferred structural type is only par- future stems (Bat-El 1989; Schwarzwald 1996). tially predictable. When the base consists of All the other binyanim have an inflectional prefix more than four consonants, there is always a télegraf טלגרף .and/or exhibit prosodic alternation in the para- one-to-one correspondence (e.g tilgref ‘to telegraph’). When טלגרף < ’digm, as in qal, whose past form stem is CaCaC ‘telegraph gadal the base consists of three or four consonants, a גדל .while that of the future is -CCaC (e.g .yigdal ‘he will grow’). one-to-one correspondence is very likely (e.g יגדל he grew’ versus‘ -tirgel ‘to exer תרגל < ’targil ‘exercise תרגיל Although pi≠el is the most common binyan for hišpriß ‘to השפריץ < ’špriß ‘squirt שפריץ ,’denominal verbs, it is by no means the only one. cise In some cases hif ≠il is used, for morpho-syntactic squirt’), but there are also cases of reduplica- or phonological reasons (Bolozky 1978, 1999; tion, often due to the tendency to preserve the ša≤or ‘black’ > consonant cluster of the base (see §3). For this שחור Laks 2009). In the case of -faqs ‘facsim פקס hiš≤ir ‘to become black’, hif ≠il is used due reason, the verb derived from השחיר (fiqses ‘to send a fax’ (reduplication פקסס to its morpho-syntactic function in inchoative ile’ is ,(hifliq ‘to rather than *fiqes (one-to-one correspondence הפליק < ’fliq ‘slap פליק verbs, and in flir† ‘flirt’ is פלירט slap’, the binyan’s prosodic structure preserves and the verb derived from ,†flirte† ‘to flirt’ rather than *filre†, *flire פלירטט the base intact, thus enhancing the phonological similarity between the verb and the base word or *filer†. כידרר < ’kadur ‘ball כדור from which it is derived. A similar