Toward the Meaning of the Biblical Hebrew Piel Stem The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Beckman, John Charles. 2015. Toward the Meaning of the Biblical Hebrew Piel Stem. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:17463966 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Toward the Meaning of the Biblical Hebrew Piel Stem A dissertation presented by John Charles Beckman to The Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts January 2015 ©2015 John Charles Beckman All Rights Reserved Dissertation Advisor: Professor John Huehnergard John Charles Beckman Toward the Meaning of the Biblical Hebrew Piel Stem Abstract The biblical Hebrew D stem (piel) seems to be inconsistent from verb to verb, both in its meaning and in its relationship to the G stem (qal). For example, the D stem has a higher valency G ‘to be holy’, D ‘to make holy’), whereas for other קדשׁ ,.than the G stem for some verbs (e.g can be glossed ‘to break’ in שׁבר־verbs, the G and D stems seem to be interchangeable (e.g., 1 both the G and D stems). The dominant explanation for this is by Waltke and O’Connor (1990), who draw upon earlier work by Jenni (1968) and Goetze (1942). They posit that the D stem is factitive/ resultative, meaning that it describes the subject causing a passive undersubject to enter a state ,which means ‘to break’ (process) in the G stem ,שׁבר־without describing the process. Thus 1 means ‘to make broken’ (resultative) in the D stem. By developing criteria to detect this distinction and by examining every occurrence of every verb in the Hebrew Bible, we found that the D stem has a process meaning far more often than a resultative meaning, contrary to Waltke and O’Connor’s hypothesis. Furthermore, their hypothesis cannot explain verbs that lack a direct object in the D stem. As an alternate explanation, Kouwenberg (1997, 2010) argued that the D stem originally expressed verbal intensity but then developed a variety of meanings, including verbal plurality and high semantic transitivity. In addition to having cross-linguistic support, this hypothesis also passed all three tests that we devised regarding its use in the Hebrew Bible: (1) The D stem adds iii an agent only to verbs that have low semantic transitivity in the G stem. (2) For verbs with roughly the same meaning in the D and G stems, the D stem is more likely in contexts that have high verbal plurality or (3) high semantic transitivity. Nevertheless, the difference in likelihood is often slight. Furthermore, the flexibility of Kouwenberg’s explanation makes it difficult to falsify, even in theory. Therefore, the level of support for Kouwenberg’s hypothesis is modest. iv Contents Abstract.....................................................................................................................................iii Tables .....................................................................................................................................viii Figures........................................................................................................................................x Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................xi Glossary, Abbreviations, and Symbols ....................................................................................xii 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 1.1. The Problem .................................................................................................................1 1.2. Prior Work on the Semitic D Stem ...............................................................................3 1.2.1. Synchronic Approaches – Intensive/Pluralic........................................................3 1.2.2. Synchronic Approaches – Factitive ......................................................................5 1.2.3. Other Synchronic Approaches..............................................................................9 1.2.4. Can Pluralic and Factitive/Causative be Combined Synchronically? ................10 1.2.5. Diachronic Approaches – Multiple D Stems Fell Together................................11 1.2.6. Diachronic Approaches – The D Stem Changed over Time...............................11 1.3. The Need for Further Work ........................................................................................15 2. Relevant Concepts from Linguistic Theory .........................................................................17 2.1. Syntactic Transitivity..................................................................................................17 2.1.1. Syntactic Transitivity Theory .............................................................................17 2.1.2. Syntactic Transitivity and the D Stem ................................................................18 2.2. Semantic Transitivity..................................................................................................21 2.2.1. Semantic Transitivity According to Hopper and Thompson ..............................23 2.2.2. Semantic Transitivity According to Tsunoda......................................................31 2.2.3. Semantic Transitivity According to Givón .........................................................34 2.2.4. Semantic Transitivity According to Kittilä.........................................................39 2.2.5. Semantic Transitivity According to Næss ..........................................................41 2.2.6. Semantic Transitivity and the D Stem ................................................................44 2.3. Semantic Categories of Verbs.....................................................................................46 2.3.1. Action vs. Alternating-Valency and Agentive vs. Patientive..............................46 2.3.2. Fientive vs. Stative .............................................................................................49 2.3.3. Active vs. Middle................................................................................................52 2.4. Verbal Plurality ...........................................................................................................55 2.4.1. Verbal Plurality Theory.......................................................................................55 2.4.2. Verbal Plurality and the D Stem .........................................................................58 v 2.5. Grammaticalization ....................................................................................................62 2.5.1. Grammaticalization Theory................................................................................62 2.5.2. Grammaticalization and the Semitic D Stem .....................................................65 2.5.3. A Cross-Linguistic Grammaticalization Path .....................................................67 2.6. Lexicalization .............................................................................................................71 3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................74 3.1. Data Source.................................................................................................................74 3.2. Sampling.....................................................................................................................76 4. Causation with a Passive Undersubject?..............................................................................78 4.1. Waltke & O’Connor’s Hypothesis..............................................................................78 4.2. Criteria and Plan to Test Waltke and O’Connor’s Hypothesis ...................................80 4.3. Looking for a Passive Undersubject in Waltke and O’Connor’s Examples...............83 4.3.1. Factitive Examples .............................................................................................84 85.............................................................................................................. למד .4.3.1a 89.....................................חלה, קדשׁ, קרב, ישׁב, ילד, גדל, חסר :4.3.1b. Real Factitives 99............... קלל, אשׁר־2, טהר, צדק, כבד :4.3.1c. Psychological/Linguistic Factitives 4.3.2. Resultative Examples .......................................................................................104 105...........................שׁבר־1 ,חלק ,בתר ,פרשׂ ,פשׂק ,שׁטח :4.3.2a. Simple Resultatives 116............................................ זרה, דלה :(4.3.2b. Irreal Resultatives (Metaphorical 120.....................................שׁבר־1, בקע :(4.3.2c. Irreal Resultatives (Indirect Action 122......................................נשׁך, נשׁק :(4.3.2d. Other Resultatives (Multiple Objects 4.3.3. Denominal Examples........................................................................................125