An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

perfect iptaras ‘he has cut,’ preterite iprus ‘he cut,’ imperative purus ‘cut!’, and
permansive or stative paris ‘he is cut.’ 9 The last of these is relevant here; the
Akkadian permansive or stative verb form should not be confused with the class of
stative verbs, that is, verbs which refer to a state or quality (22.2.1). The Akkadian
permansive form is used when the subject has a quality or has undergone an action
associated with the root. (In the latter case the form is rendered as a passive.) Goetze’s
proposal associates the G stem permansive arik fit is long’ with the D stem urrukum
‘to make (to be) long.’ Wolfram von Soden, in his standard grammar of Akkadian,
follows Goetze in describing the stem: “The chief function of the D stem is factitive,
that is, it expresses above all the bringing about of a situation which would be
designated by the permansive of the G stem,…(e.g., damiq ‘he is good’: dummuqum
‘to make good’; balit ‘he is alive’: bullutum ‘to make (to be) living, keep alive’; salim
‘he is friendly’: sullumum’to make (to be) friendly, reconcile’).” 10 Thus, in von
Soden’s grammar, the “intensive” concept is not used to explain the D stem.
e Jenni’s argument about the sense of the Hebrew Piel is modeled on Goetze’s
treatment, though the shape of it is different for a number of reasons. 11 First, Hebrew
has no finite verb form like the Akkadian permansive. Second, Piel forms are used
with a greater variety of verbs than are D-stem forms in Akkadian; specifically more
verbs which are fientive (usually transitive) in the G stem use the D stem. (For such
groups, we shall use terms such as Qal fientive or Qal transitive.)
f The Piel, according to Jenni, expresses the notion of effecting or causing a state
corresponding to the basic meaning of the root; this state can be expressed in terms of
an[Page 399] adjectival construction. 12 With Qal intransitive verbs (often stative) this
9 The first three of these forms are treated below (Chaps. 29–31); for the moment, it is
sufficient to note that the labels attached to them are conventional and the glosses
somewhat arbitrary.
10 W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1969) 115. A factitive meaning for the Akkadian D stem is also recognized
by (A. Ungnad) L. Matouš, Grammatik des Akkadischen (Munich: Beck, 1964) 74–
75; K. K. Riemschneider, Lehrbuch des Akkadischen (Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopadie,
1969) 83; F. Rundgren, “Des Verbalpräfix yu- im Semitischen und die Entstehung der
faktitiv-kausativen Bedeutung des D-Stammes,” Orientalia Suecana 12 (1964) 99–
114.
11 Jenni emphasizes the systematic character of the Hebrew stems; see 21.2.2q and
contrast the views of Sperber cited there. Our hesitation in following Jenni entirely
does not diminish our admiration of his goal.
12 Lambdin summarizes Jenni’s philosophical argument in this way: “J[enni] begins
by characterizing the difference between adjectival and verbal predication as
adjectival: verbal:: subjective: objective:: synthetic: analytic. That is, in an adjectival
predication, the adjective lexeme (or root) itself represents the subjective opinion of
the speaker, while in the verbal predication the lexical substance is a dalum
(objective) and only the modality of the verb reflects the speaker’s role. Since…the
piel and hiphil are viewed respectively as the factitive/causative transforms of