An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

auxiliary[Page 386] verb in the unit was-broken,” whereas in the adjectival, “It was
broken, was is the verb to be followed by an adjective/participle.” 21
2.
1. רוֹזא ֵ חתַּ ְפ ִנ אֹ לוְ ךְוֹר ְשׂ קתַּ ִנ אֹ לו ְ וי ָצ ָלחֲ ׃וי ָל ָענ ְ
׃הי ָ חי ֶ֫ רִ ְב וּר ְבּ ְשׁ ִ
3. . רוּגס ָ הֶיהִי ְ . . . ר ַע ַשׁ ֫
חַ תֵ ָפִּי . .
Not a belt is loose at his waist, not a sandal-thong is
broken.
Isa 5:27
נ The bars of its (Babylon’s) gates are broken.
Jer 51:30
The gate…will be shut [for six days…, then] will be
open.
Ezek 46:1
c The ingressive-stative Niphal describes the subject coming to be in a particular
state. 22 If the subject is non-personal, the Niphal also has a middle sense.
4. ךְרֶ דֶּ֫ מ ִ םיאִ
ָבּ םִימ־ה ַ֫
ֵנּהִ וְ
There it was—water flowing from the Way of Edom,
ץרֶ א֫ ָ ה ָ א ֵל ָמּ תִּ ו ַ םוֹדאֱ ֑ and the land became filled with water.
׃םִימּ ָ֫
ה־ת ַ אֶ
2 Kgs 3:20
With a personal subject, the ingressive-stative also has a reflexive sense, for it
refers to emotions and the like, which react upon the psyche.
6.
7.
8.
5. וימָ חֲ ר ַ וּר ְמ ְכ ִנ־י ִכּ
ויחִ א־ל ָ א ֶ
And his compassion grew hot toward his brother.
Gen 43:30
׃וינָ ָפּ ִמ וּלהֲ ְב ִנ י ִכּ because they became terrified at his presence
ם ִע ֵמ ןתָ ָנוֹהְי
םקָ ָיּ֫ וַ
. . . ףא־י ֑ ָ רִ חֳ ָבּ ןחָ ְל ֻשּׁ הַ
דוִ דּ־ל ָ א ֶ ב ַצ ְענ ֶ י ִכּ
׃םחֵ ָנּה ִ יתי ִ א֫ ֵ ְל ִ
Gen 45:3
Jonathan got up from the table in fierce anger…because
he became grieved (or, hurt) for David.
1 Sam 20:34
נ I have become too weary to be moved to pity.
21 Lambdin groups together the simple adjective and gerundive Niphals as
“resultative,” a term we reserve for one use of the Piel. Note his English examples:
passive ‘to be opened’ versus simple adjectival ‘to be open’; passive ‘It is being
broken’ versus simple adjectival ‘It is broken.’ See Introduction to Biblical Hebrew,
177. English illustrations only suggest the relevant distinctions.
22 In Akkadian the N stem with stative verbs is predominantly ingressive, e.g., G stem
ibašši ‘he is’ versus N stem ibbašši ‘he becomes.’ See Moscati et al., Comparative
Grammar, 126–27; W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969) 118. Von Soden allows for an ingressive fientive,
but such a form is at best rare in Akkadian.