An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

the fact that the verbal stems constitute a system, a system of clearly differentiated
morphemes, which, by definition, involves both form and function. 11
b Recently Goshen-Gottstein attempted to correct the atomistic approach to the Semitic
verbal stems by constructing a diagram of the verbal stem system that would throw
into relief the known facts about these verbal stems. 12 His diagram concerns itself
with forms rather than meanings. If, however, the individual verbal stems serve
particular functions, and if they together constitute a system, then we may with good
reason attempt to study the function of the system as a whole. In fact, such an
abstraction can be of help in understanding the functions or meanings of the
individual parts and of their relationships to one another.
c All grammarians agree that the verbal stems in part denote voice, the relationship of
the subject to the situation, discussed in 20.2j. The passive character of several of the
stems was recognized in the Ma˒aseh Ephod of Profiat Duran (ca. 1400 C.E.); in the
treatment of the binyanim of the verb, the Pual and Hophal are called the stems whose
agents are not mentioned. 13 Moshe Greenberg offers a model of the verbal stems,
based on a “grid” or system of coordinates (“axes”), with one of the coordinates
pertaining to voice. 14
ִ
ְ ִ
ִ
ֻ
ְ ָ
[Page 354] I II III
Active ר ַמ ָשׁ ר ֵפּס רי ִכּזה ר ַמ ְשׁ נ ר ַפּס ר ַכּזה Passive
11
It should be noted that an atomistic approach is not particularly successful at
dealing with the semantic anomalies and subpatterns that affect any study of the
Hebrew verb. Some usages are unpredictable and thus a matter of the lexicon. A halfhearted
or timid grammar is no better a complement to the lexicon than a serious one.
For other approaches to the topic of the system, see Richter, GAHG 3. 94–142; S.
Segert, “Verbal Categories of Some Northwest Semitic Languages,” Afroasiatic
Linguistics 2 (1975) 83–94. The system of verbal stems in Modern Hebrew, though
vastly restricted, reveals some interesting patterns; see the studies of R. A. Berman,
“Lexical Decomposition and Lexical Unity in the Expression of Derived Verbal
Categories in Modern Hebrew,” Afroasiatic Linguistics 6 (1979) 117–42; and S.
Bolozky, “Semantic Productivity and Word Frequency in Modern Hebrew Verb
Formation,” Hebrew Studies 27 (1986) 38–46.
12
Goshen-Gottstein, “System of Verbal Stems,” 83–91. Note also Diakonoff’s
comment that these morphologically distinct stems have their “own semantics,
variously characterizing the action or state from the point of view of quality, quantity,
or direction”; Semito-Hamitic Languages, 97.
13
David Tene, “Linguistic Literature, Hebrew,” Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem:
Keter, 1971), 16. 1374.
14
After Moshe Greenberg, Introduction to Hebrew (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1965) 42; cf. August Dillmann, Grammatik der äthiopischen Sprache
(Leipzig: Tauchitz, 1857; 2d ed. in 1899). For similar schemata for the other Semitic
languages, see Goshen-Gottstein, “System of Verbal Stems,” esp. 74–75,
Bergsträsser/ Daniels, Introduction to the Semitic Languages; and Voigt, “Review of
Bergsträsser-Daniels.”