# meanings of the binyanim



## Requiescat

Hi,
I am just starting out learning Hebrew and, as I always do, I have headed straight for the verbs. I am finding this verbal system quite unusual and difficult to grasp. The basic premise is that there are mostly three letter roots, shoresh, which is then applied to a pattern which is the binyan. That much I understand, but the rest is a mystery. There are seven binyanim; pa'al, pi'el, hif'il, hitpa'el, huf'al, pu'al, nif'al. Each binyanim has it's own distinct pattern which is placed onto the shoresh. But what exactly do these binyanim mean? What of tenses, moods, voices and aspects that I find in other languages? It just doesn't make any sense to me. Could someone please flesh out what I already know and clear this up for me? Thanks for your time.

Regards,
Requiescat


----------



## tFighterPilot

I think the root פעל is generally not the best to describe roots for Hebrew lerners, as it contains ע which isn't a consonant in most languages. I'd rather use קטל (ktl).

Now, the structures don't exactly carry a meaning, in most cases. Simply each verb fits one root or the other. One thing that is constant is that niktal is the passive form of katal, kutal is the passive form of kitel and huktal is the passive form of hiktil. Hitkatel has no passive form and thus most verbs which fit it are verbs with no passive form and in most cases describe action that a person does on himself (such as taking a shower).


----------



## arielipi

That is rubbish fighter, each verb binyan has a parallel tense in english. such as simple past tense is usually paal, hitpael is usually an action that goes back at the actioner, each has its own thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Hebrew_verb_conjugation for more info.


----------



## Requiescat

Okay, so each Binyan is a type of mood? With a present, past, future etc tense? So if I was to make a table of this it would be:

Pa'al/Pi'el/Hif'il/Hitpa'el/Huf'al/Pu'al/Nif'al

- Present Tense
- Past Tense
- Future Tense

- Imperative
- Participle
- Infinitive
- Gerunds
- Conditional

So that's the full verb paradigm? Though not every verb has every Binyan?


----------



## arielipi

correct. what do you mean by mood?


----------



## Requiescat

I mean that they are used to convey an attitude towards the action. You know, you have tenses as in time, voices as in if you are doing the action or receiving the action, etc etc. But thanks for clearing that up for me, I think I get this now.


----------



## origumi

This sort of basic question that cover such wide issue - it's better to read the introductory chapter in a Biblical or Modern Hebrew text book. You can also find numerous internet resource, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Hebrew_verb_conjugation
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hebrew_verbs
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius'_Hebrew_Grammar/38
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/26_verbs.html
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Ten/Introduction/introduction.html


----------



## Requiescat

Hi Origumi, 
Just a quick question; isn't Modern Hebrew quite different from Biblical Hebrew?


----------



## arielipi

yes it is. but not too much on the structure, only on use of words.


----------



## origumi

Requiescat said:


> Hi Origumi,
> Just a quick question; isn't Modern Hebrew quite different from Biblical Hebrew?


It's the same language. Modern Hebrew has many additions after 2000 years of history, for example Aramaic influence in ancient post-biblical times and international words (scientific and alike) in modern times. Yet it's the same language. Nothing like the difference between old English and modern (or Shakespearean, or Chaucerian) English. Learn one and you know 95% of the other in regard to grammar, with vocabulary that needs adjustments.


----------



## tFighterPilot

Sorry, I meant each verb fits into one structure (binyan) or another, not root. My mistake.


----------



## airelibre

With regards to moods, there isn't a lot in Hebrew, certainly not a subjunctive conjugation or other conjugations that you should learn. 
There is different language used for requests (ie. אל תעשה rather than לא תעשה) and I have heard of a cohortative mood. I'm sure there are others but it won't limit your understanding of the language early on.


----------



## arielipi

The tone defines the mood.


----------



## arbelyoni

arielipi said:


> The tone defines the mood.


No, grammatical moods are inflected within the verb.

Modern Hebrew uses only one distinct verbal inflection for moods – the imperative.
Biblical Hebrew also had the cohortative mood (called עתיד מוארך in Hebrew: הבה נגילה ונשמחה) and the jussive mood (called עתיד מקוצר in Hebrew: יהי אור).


----------



## arielipi

No, the tone defines it, if one is being sarcastic its only noticeable by his tone, not one binyan can assure it - only the tone.


----------



## airelibre

arbelyoni said:


> No, grammatical moods are inflected within the verb.
> 
> Modern Hebrew uses only one distinct verbal inflection for moods – the imperative.
> Biblical Hebrew also had the cohortative mood (called עתיד מוארך in Hebrew: הבה נגילה ונשמחה) and the jussive mood (called עתיד מקוצר in Hebrew: יהי אור).



✔

Arielipi, all languages use tone to convey different meanings, and between languages the variation is very small regarding which tone variation signals which nuance in meaning. Eg. Sarcasm is the same in every language that uses it (some African languages don't have sarcasm but that is more a cultural than linguistic thing). 
Mood in this sense means different verbal conjugations to express different relationships to the verb used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood


----------



## arielipi

i see, so hebrew does have that a bit.


----------



## Requiescat

I think I'm starting to understand this a bit better. It certainly is the strangest verbal system that I have come across. Latin may be more fiddly, but it made so much more sense to me lol. 

Okay, I think the best way to take this forward is to try and work through an actual verb to see were I am right now. I'll use the verb "to speak, talk (to)". Here is my little table I put together to show my "conjugation" of the root. 

http://i48.tinypic.com/23hlqwy.png

So, to translate them into English, they would be: 

Present Tense
Medaber: Speak(s) (masculine singular)
Medaberet: Speak(s) (feminine singular)
Medaberaym: Speak(s) (masculine plural)
Medaberot: Speak(s) (feminine plural)

Past Tense
Daybaretay: I spoke
Daybareta: You spoke (masculine)
Daybarete: You spoke (feminine)
Dayber: He spoke
Dayberah: She spoke
Daybarenu: We spoke
Daybaretem/n: You spoke (masculine/feminine)
Daybaru: They spoke

Future Tense
Adaber: I will/shall speak
Tedaber: You will/shall speak (masculine)
Tedabry: You will/shall speak (feminine)
Yedaber: He will/shall speak
Tedaber: She will/shall speak
Nedaber: We will/shall speak
Tedaberu: You shall speak
Yedaberu: They will/shall speak

Imperative
Daber - You speak! (masculine)
Dabery - You speak! (feminine)
Dabery - You speak! (plural)

Present Participle
Medaber: Listening

Infinitive
Ledaber: Speak

Infinitive Absolute
Daber: ?

Verbal N (Gerund)
Daybnar: Speech

Is that fully conjugated? Of course I left out the infinitive absolute translation as I'm not sure how that would be translated or used. Anything amiss, or that I should know about? Again, I greatly appreciate everyone's patience in going through this, I know it's a big ask.


----------



## arielipi

Verbal N (Gerund)
dibur = speech.

also you have many unnecessary e  Dabery should be dabri, Tedaberu should be tedabru adn such as this. try to correct it ok?

note - not every yod is making a ay sound, it can also act as read matre(much like in latin). replace every ay sound with simple i sound like in the word dish.

note that there can be many infinitives for each binyan - lehidaber, ledaber

as for infinitive absolute - theres not much use of it in hebrew nowadays, not one that you can ask the common person about it. i cant tell what it would be - thats a know or go thing.


----------



## airelibre

A very good site for you to see as a beginner is http://www.hebrew-verbs.co.il/ . There you will find the correct conjugation for ledaber and also will be able to get an idea of how other basic verbs conjugate.


----------



## berndf

Requiescat said:


> Okay, so each Binyan is a type of mood?


I'd say they express a combination of aspects* and voices, not moods. E.g.
Pi´el - aspect=intensive, voice=active
Pu´al - aspect=intensive, voice=passive
____________
Edit: *aspect is not the right word either. The term is already in use. I was looking for an common term for _intensive_ and _causative_.


----------



## arielipi

in a way, they do express mood, because you can use different binyanim to express the same event; they will differ in what the _aspect _of the binyan is and in return the mood of the _sentence _will be altered.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> in a way, they do express mood, because you can use different binyanim to express the same event; they will differ in what the _aspect _of the binyan is and in return the mood of the _sentence _will be altered.


No, a grammatical _mood_ is something else. It is a feature of a verb, not of a sentence and it expresses modality (including null-modality, i.e. indicative). Modality means that the verb expresses not an action itself but says something about an proposition containing the action: _I go_ is a simple proposition; _I must go, I should go, I can go_; those sentences modal propositions about the simple proposition. Modern Hebrew has _indicative_ and _imperative_ moods. Classical Hebrew also had _cohortative _and _jussive_. But those things are not expressed by Binyanim.

BTW: Don't confuse _mode _in grammar or music with _mood _in common meaning. Those are not the same words. _Mood_ as we use it here is a 16th century alteration (or you could call it "spelling mistake") _of mode_, from Latin_ modus._


----------



## arielipi

from wiki: *grammatical mood is a grammatical (and specifically, morphological) feature of verbs, used to signal modality.[1][2].181; [3] That is, it is the use of verbal inflections that allow speakers to express their attitude toward what they are saying

*so in a way, binyanim do show a form of mood - because i can describe with passive/active binyan the same thing, the tone at which it is pronounced, the speed - all determine the "*express their attitude toward what they are saying*​"


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> from wiki: *grammatical mood is a grammatical (and specifically, morphological) feature of verbs, used to signal modality.[1][2].181; [3] That is, it is the use of verbal inflections that allow speakers to express their attitude toward what they are saying
> 
> *so in a way, binyanim do show a form of mood - because i can describe with passive/active binyan the same thing, the tone at which it is pronounced, the speed - all determine the "*express their attitude toward what they are saying*​"


No, you can not describe the difference between _I go, I must go and I can go _using speed or intonation.


----------



## airelibre

I understand what you mean arielipi, and you have a point, yet the definition used by most people of a grammatical mood refers to things such as indicative and subjunctive mood. In English, passive and active constructions are not classed as separate moods (even though they can sometimes express different attitudes of the speaker) so neither are the different binyanim classed as separate moods. 
As has been said, they can on a very general basis be classed into aspects and voices such as intensive, causative etc. which could also be said to express different attitudes, but that does not mean that they are classed as moods.


----------



## berndf

airelibre said:


> even though they can sometimes express different attitudes of the speaker


In a modal sentence, the attitude itself is object of the sentence and not the action itself._ He give him the book_ and _the book is given to him_are true under the same condition whilst _I give him the book _and _I can give him the book _are true under different condition, i.e. _I can give him the book_ can be true and _I give him the book _can be false at the same time.


----------



## arielipi

but that is just it - english is not hebrew.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> but that is just it - english is not hebrew.


And? They give me an example where modality is expressed by a binyan.


----------



## arielipi

i did not understand what you just said.


----------



## fdb

The Semitic system of stem formation (as Semitists usually call it) has nothing to do with tense or with mood. Semitic has a different mechanism for expressing these. In some, but by no means all, instances it has to do with voice (active, passive, reflexive). In essence it is a system of forming different verbal stems from the same (usually trilitteral) root. The meanings of the various stems of any given root are only partially predictable; for the most part they are lexicalised. Typologically it is the same thing which happens in Indo-European languages when different verbs are derived from the same root, e.g. in English “sit” versus “set”, “lie” versus “lay”, and the like.


----------



## airelibre

Due to the different binyanim for intensive and simple, they could be seen as showing a small degree of modality, in some cases. Eg. Yatzar and yitzer are both from the same root יצר and if someone uses them they show different attitudes - yitzer shows that the person is thinking about the action of manufacturing something rather than just the A to B of it. Maybe a weak argument but I'm just trying to see it from what might be Arielipi's point of view. 
Overall, I must say I agree with the other posts - the moods in Hebrew are strictly Imperative and Indicative.


----------



## arielipi

as a native, i think i have a better view of the things than you.
i say - so what if mood is defined like x in language y; the thing itself - i.e. that different use of words represent partially the speaker's pov - is the important thing, and in hebrew binyanim _can _also show the speakers pov.
there are binynanim that show the actioner's willingness to perform the action
and thus i see that binyanim (to me) can also have the mood system.


----------



## airelibre

arielipi said:


> there are binynanim that show the actioner's willingness to perform the action



Do you have the examples to prove this?


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> i did not understand what you just said.


You said, binyanim can express modality and you just re-iterated that claim:


arielipi said:


> i say - so what if mood is defined like x in language y; the thing itself - i.e. that different use of words represent partially the speaker's pov - is the important thing, and in hebrew binyanim _can _also show the speakers pov.
> there are binynanim that show the actioner's willingness to perform the action
> and thus i see that binyanim (to me) can also have the mood system.


Like airelibre, I suggest you provide a _concrete _example to demonstrate point. Then we can hopefully decide whether we have missed something, as you think, or whether you failed to comprehend the concept of modality, as I think.

Notwithstanding different meanings in special cases, I hope we can agree that the seven binyanim have the following abstract meaning:
Qal: active,
Nif`al: passive,
Pi`el: intensive, active,
Pu`al: intensive, passive,
Hif`il: causative, active,
Huf`al: causative, passive,​ Hitpa`el: reflexive.​ None of these meanings are related to modality.


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> Notwithstanding different meanings in special cases, I hope we can agree that the seven binyanim have the following abstract meaning:Qal: active,
> Nif`al: passive,
> Pi`el: intensive, active,
> Pu`al: intensive, passive,
> Hif`il: causative, active,
> Huf`al: causative, passive,​Hitpa`el: reflexive.​ None of these meanings are related to modality.



I would certainly agree with this, though instead of "special cases" I prefer to speak about "lexicalisation" (see no. 31).


----------



## arielipi

i do not agree on that entirely - i understood is what you meant from the beginning.
though in general use they are exactly as you said - in special cases they can be used to express the speakers pov. that is - using a binyan which tends to show a slower performance of the action, or a passive to show that the person is being thrown from wall to wall.

perhaps if you explain more about the mood system ill understand better - correct me if im wrong; isnt it "different use of words represent partially the speaker's pov" in an implicit way?


the easiest binyanim to shwo is ofc hitpael and piel - one is reflexive and the other is intensive active
when you think about it - they act exactly the same for the action itself - so why do we have them both? the answer is that there is a difference; hebrew is very dense as you know, and if theres a copy- it means theres a difference; so the difference is that hitpael shows that both sides want the action, while piel is the more agressive - one side is willing more for the action.


as for the speed of pronouncing - if you speak at a ratio x and at the *verb* you suddenly change the ratio or the tone, that means theres _something _here different than just saying the verb.
qal for example, can be pronounced with a going-up-going-down tone with each syllable and with a bit of keeping the word for some more time followed by greater ratio than before the verb to show the disrespect for the claimed action.


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> the easiest binyanim to shwo is ofc hitpael and piel - one is reflexive and the other is intensive active
> when you think about it - they act exactly the same for the action itself - so why do we have them both? the answer is that there is a difference; hebrew is very dense as you know, and if theres a copy- it means theres a difference; so the difference is that hitpael shows that both sides want the action, while piel is the more agressive - one side is willing more for the action.


What you mean is that the intensive form implies a value judgement, but it does not alter the fact that the action has actually taken place (or hasn't i, if the sentence was negative). Modality means the *instead *of saying the action takes place you talk about someone's attitude.

_He reads the book_ --- The reading actually takes place.
_He can read the book_ --- The sentence is not saying anything about whether or not he does read the book, it only talks about his ability.
_He must read the book_ --- The sentence is not saying anything about  whether or not he does read the book, it only talks about obligation.
_Read the book!_ --- The sentence is not saying anything about  whether or not he does read the book, it only talks about you wanting him to do so.

Now a mood is a verb form that changes modality. The only verb form in modern Hebrew that can do this is the imperative:
.תקרא את הספר -- Indicative, future: You will actually read the book.
 !קרא את הספר -- Imperative: This sentence only says that I want you to read the book; it does not say that you will do so.


----------



## utopia

berndf said:


> You said, binyanim can express modality and you just re-iterated that claim:
> Like airelibre, I suggest you provide a _concrete _example to demonstrate point. Then we can hopefully decide whether we have missed something, as you think, or whether you failed to comprehend the concept of modality, as I think.
> 
> Notwithstanding different meanings in special cases, I hope we can agree that the seven binyanim have the following abstract meaning:Qal: active,
> Nif`al: passive,
> Pi`el: intensive, active,
> Pu`al: intensive, passive,
> Hif`il: causative, active,
> Huf`al: causative, passive,​Hitpa`el: reflexive.​None of these meanings are related to modality.



Both nif'al and hitpa'el have sometimes an inchoative or ingressive sense. Like נעמד - NE'EMAD, or התיישב HITYASHEV.


----------



## arielipi

1)
ok ill reform how i said it, we call a verb in english a verb - why? in hebrew we have the shoresh+binyanim and thus we know that it is verb. but take in english the out-of-time action - you wouldnt be able to tell if a new word is a verb or something else.

so - with different systems, why cant the same meaning take other forms?


2)
so basically even if 1 fails, i can say according to your explanation that.. using sentences like
אתה חייב לקרוא את הספר
אתה צריך לקרוא את הספר
are of modality? because it shows my wanting for you to do so, but it doesnt say if you will actually do so


----------



## berndf

arielipi said:


> so basically even if 1 fails, i can say according to your explanation that.. using sentences like
> אתה חייב לקרוא את הספר
> אתה צריך לקרוא את הספר
> are of modality? because it shows my wanting for you to do so, but it doesnt say if you will actually do so


Yes, in English as in Hebrew modality can either be expressed by an auxiliary verb, called _modal verb_, or by a _mood_. In you example it is expressed by a modal verb. The same is possible in English: _You must read the book_.

Biblical Hebrew had besides the imperative two additional moods: _jussive_ and _cohortative_. English does not have special moods for this but the present subjunctive mood can express the jussive:
יהיה אור = _There will be light_ (future indicative in both, Hebrew and English)​ יהי אור = _There be light_ (jussive in Hebrew and present subjunctive in English).​ Those things are not expressed by binyanim but by conjugations within a binyan (in this case qal).


----------



## berndf

utopia said:


> Both nif'al and hitpa'el have sometimes an inchoative or ingressive sense. Like נעמד - NE'EMAD, or התיישב HITYASHEV.


I guess this applies only to intransitive verbs where a passive meaning is not defined. Right?


----------



## arielipi

youll have to explain all of these unfamilliar words if you want ym answer on this -  inchoative or ingressive  intransitive verbs


----------



## airelibre

arielipi said:


> youll have to explain all of these unfamilliar words if you want ym answer on this -  inchoative or ingressive  intransitive verbs



An intransitive verb is one which requires no object: I sleep, I go etc. 
inchoative verbs or aspects deal with the starting of an action. Eg. In some languages, 'to love' and 'to fall in love' (to start to love) are formed from the same verb, with only slight differences in conjugation. 
I haven't heard of ingressive but I would guess it involves going into something. To ingress means to enter.


----------



## fdb

And of course there are such things as dictionaries....


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> I would certainly agree with this, though instead of "special cases" I prefer to speak about "lexicalisation" (see no. 31).


I'd say, the concrete meanings of all verbs (combination of shoresh and binyan) are lexicalized.


----------



## arielipi

hebrew doesnt have any of those, only intransitive verbs, except for hitpael.


i still think binyanim can affect the continuinity  of the conversation because they affect how the action is perceived. therefor resulting in them having a bit of mood.

EDIT: perhaps i havent clarified it enough, im taking mood at its abstract meaning, not with the definitions, therefore i see mood in binyanim.


----------



## JAN SHAR

But the verb להלחם is from nifal and does not have a passive sense. Are you sure nifal is a passive?


----------



## Drink

Are you asking why rules have exceptions in general or just in this one case?

Can the French pronoun "se" not be called a reflexive pronoun if the phrase "se souvenir" does not seem to have any semantic reflexiveness?


----------



## GeriReshef

JAN SHAR said:


> But the verb להלחם is from nifal and does not have a passive sense. Are you sure nifal is a passive?


I think nifal is sometimes passive sometimes active.
I'm not sure what do the grammar books say, but I can think about many examples of each option.


----------



## Ali Smith

We now know that there used to be a qal passive binyan. It follows that, at the time, nif'al must have been used for something else. We can see by the way it's used in the Bible that it, like hitpa'el, has a reflexive meaning.

For instance, nif'al לחם 'to fight', which sounds like an active verb but is not. It probably meant something like 'to be in a fighting state' in Biblical Hebrew, and you don't use it transitively; you use it with the preposition ב and say literally 'to be in a fighting state with (someone)'. So, in reality, the verb signifies something happening to the subject, not something he's doing. The nif'al and hitpa'el have this feature in common.


----------



## JAN SHAR

So, the first approach is wrong and the second one is right?

And is niphal the reflexive of qal only?


----------



## Ali Smith

Yes and yes.

Let me use the root פקד, whose meaning has something to do with "paying attention to someone/something", to illustrate the features of each binyan:

qal - to take care of something on your agenda

וַֽיהֹוָ֛ה פָּקַ֥ד אֶת־שָׂרָ֖ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר אָמָ֑ר וַיַּ֧עַשׂ יְהֹוָ֛ה לְשָׂרָ֖ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבֵּֽר׃
(בראשית כא א)

nif'al - to be accounted for

וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה עֲבָדֶ֣יךָ נָֽשְׂא֗וּ אֶת־רֹ֛אשׁ אַנְשֵׁ֥י הַמִּלְחָמָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּיָדֵ֑נוּ וְלֹא־נִפְקַ֥ד מִמֶּ֖נּוּ אִֽישׁ׃
(במדבר לא מט)

Note that the idiomatic translation of וְלֹא־נִפְקַ֥ד מִמֶּ֖נּוּ אִֽישׁ is "and not a man among us is unaccounted for" rather than "accounted for".

pi'el - to muster

ק֥וֹל הָמ֛וֹן בֶּהָרִ֖ים דְּמ֣וּת עַם־רָ֑ב ק֠וֹל שְׁא֞וֹן מַמְלְכ֤וֹת גּוֹיִם֙ נֶֽאֱסָפִ֔ים יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָא֔וֹת מְפַקֵּ֖ד צְבָ֥א מִלְחָמָֽה׃
(ישעיהו יג ד)

pu'al - to be assigned

אֲנִ֣י אָמַ֗רְתִּי בִּדְמִ֥י יָמַ֛י אֵלֵ֖כָה בְּשַׁעֲרֵ֣י שְׁא֑וֹל פֻּקַּ֖דְתִּי יֶ֥תֶר שְׁנוֹתָֽי׃
(ישעיהו לח י)

hif'il - to put in charge of assigning (causative of qal)

וַיְהִ֡י מֵאָז֩ הִפְקִ֨יד אֹת֜וֹ בְּבֵית֗וֹ וְעַל֙ כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶשׁ־ל֔וֹ וַיְבָ֧רֶךְ יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶת־בֵּ֥ית הַמִּצְרִ֖י בִּגְלַ֣ל יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיְהִ֞י בִּרְכַּ֤ת יְהֹוָה֙ בְּכׇל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶשׁ־ל֔וֹ בַּבַּ֖יִת וּבַשָּׂדֶֽה׃
(בראשית לט ה)

hof'al - to be deposited

וְהָיָה֮ כִּֽי־יֶחֱטָ֣א וְאָשֵׁם֒ וְהֵשִׁ֨יב אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָ֜ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר גָּזָ֗ל א֤וֹ אֶת־הָעֹ֙שֶׁק֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׁ֔ק א֚וֹ אֶת־הַפִּקָּד֔וֹן אֲשֶׁ֥ר הׇפְקַ֖ד אִתּ֑וֹ א֥וֹ אֶת־הָאֲבֵדָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר מָצָֽא׃
(ויקרא ה כג)

hitpa'el - to muster oneself

וַיִּתְפָּקֵ֖ד הָעָ֑ם וְהִנֵּ֤ה אֵֽין־שָׁם֙ אִ֔ישׁ מִיּוֹשְׁבֵ֖י יָבֵ֥שׁ גִּלְעָֽד׃
(שופטים כא ט)

I hope this was helpful to you.


----------



## Drink

Some have called נפעל a medio-passive or a middle voice. I think such terminology comes from Greek grammar where these were actual morphological categories. I don't think it makes much sense to apply these terms to Semitic languages. It should suffice to simply call it nif'al (or N-stem, cross-Semitically) and investigate its meaning on its own without interference from Greek grammar.

And I don't see any evidence of it being an actual reflexive, so that's clearly not a correct option.


----------



## Ali Smith

Drink said:


> And I don't see any evidence of it being an actual reflexive, so that's clearly not a correct option.


What about nif'al פגשׁ 'to meet (French: se rencontrer)'? It seems to be the reflexive of qal פגשׁ 'to meet (French: rencontrer)'. Witness:

וַיְצַ֥ו אֶת־הָרִאשׁ֖וֹן לֵאמֹ֑ר כִּ֣י יִֽפְגׇשְׁךָ֞ עֵשָׂ֣ו אָחִ֗י וּשְׁאֵֽלְךָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לְמִי־אַ֙תָּה֙ וְאָ֣נָה תֵלֵ֔ךְ וּלְמִ֖י אֵ֥לֶּה לְפָנֶֽיךָ׃
(בראשית לב יח)

רָ֤שׁ וְאִ֣ישׁ תְּכָכִ֣ים נִפְגָּ֑שׁוּ
  מֵ֤אִיר עֵינֵ֖י שְׁנֵיהֶ֣ם יְהֹוָֽה׃
(משלי כט יג)


----------



## Drink

נפגש is not reflexive. It can perhaps be described as reciprocal, or alternatively as an ordinary passive.


----------



## 𒍝𒊑𒈾 𒂵𒉿𒀉

Ali Smith said:


> We now know that there used to be a qal passive binyan. It follows that, at the time, nif'al must have been used for something else.


Actually, Ali, there is very less evidence that there was a passive qal verb. The so-called passive qal verb actually has either a geminate middle letter (so it is actually the passive of piel) or it is the passive of hifil. Can you show any clear passive qal verb?


----------



## Drink

Passive qal is a near certainty, though there are only a few examples of it. In the suffix conjugation it has merged with the form of the pu'al, and in the prefix conjugation it has merged with the form of the huf'al. Nevertheless, this merging is only superficial.

The best example we know of is לקח. The active forms of this verb are ordinary qal forms (though it is notable that the ל assimilates as though it were נ). But in the passive we find forms such as לֻקַּח and יֻקַּח. On their own, these forms may have been taken as pu'al and huf'al, respectively. But when you look at it holistically, you see they are the passive form of a qal verb, as there is no corresponding pi'el verb **לִקֵּחַ or hif'il verb **הִקִּיחַ. So it becomes clear it is a qal passive.

However, it is clear that the qal passive is a rare form that mostly fell out of use and was generally replaced by the nif'al.


----------



## 𒍝𒊑𒈾 𒂵𒉿𒀉

Why does it have a dagesh in the middle letter?


----------



## Drink

Because, as I said, its form has superficially merged with the form of the pu'al.


----------

