diff options
author | Camil Staps | 2016-10-31 18:10:35 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Camil Staps | 2016-10-31 18:10:35 +0100 |
commit | 9431a5cb8ec19f642c90be3e7bd7b1d75377e353 (patch) | |
tree | 563a8301fe45465fe82caa6d20f7b5315f768fe7 | |
parent | Finish Gzella (diff) |
Handout Grüneberg
-rw-r--r-- | gruneberg-handout.tex | 82 |
1 files changed, 82 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/gruneberg-handout.tex b/gruneberg-handout.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bbdd65d --- /dev/null +++ b/gruneberg-handout.tex @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +\documentclass[a4paper]{article} + +\usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref} +\usepackage[top=2cm]{geometry} +\usepackage[font=small]{caption} +\usepackage{handouts} + +\usepackage{polyglossia} +\setdefaultlanguage{british} +\setotherlanguage{hebrew} +\newfontfamily\dutchfont[Mapping=tex-text]{Latin Modern Roman} +\newfontfamily\hebrewfont[Scale=MatchLowercase]{Ezra SIL} +\DeclareTextFontCommand{\ez}{\hebrewfont} + +\usepackage{stfloats} +\usepackage{subcaption} +\usepackage{enumitem} + +\title{\Large Handout of ``The niphal in Hebrew''\footnote{In Keith N. Gr\"uneberg, \emph{Abraham, Blessing and the Nations} (2003).}} +\author{Camil Staps} + +\begin{document} + +\maketitle + +%Under consideration is Gn.~12:3, \ez{הָאֲדָמָֽה מִשְׁפְּחֹ֥ת כֹּ֖ל בְךָ֔ \textcolor{red}{נִבְרְכ֣וּ}וְ אָאֹ֑ר וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ֖ מְבָ֣רְכֶ֔יךָ וַאֲבָֽרֲכָה֙}. +%The niphal can be interpreted as passive (`be blessed'), middle (`find blessing') or reflexive (`bless themselves')% +% \pagenr{2a}. + +In the discussion about passive, middle and reflexive we distinguish + the \term{morphological} level, + the \term{semantic} level% + \note{reflexive in case of coreference of the semantic roles; + but for middles, a common property is yet to be found; + passives cannot be defined semantically as they correspond to an active sharing all semantic properties} and + the \term{relational} level% + \note{a use being relationally [reflexive] iff it expresses exactly the same action as the corresponding active --- + this is more restrictive than the semantic level}% + \pagenrs{3b--5a\footnote{Page numbers refer to the PDF, with `a' the left page and `b' the right page.}}. +Uses that were originally relationally [reflexive] may cease to be so due to semantic shift\pagenr{5a}. + +The niphal expresses subject affectedness\pagenr{6b}, + but may still have different nuances\pagenr{7a}. +It may not be sharply distinguished from other stems, + and two stems may be complementary + (i.e., there may exist correlation between stem and tense)\pagenr{7b}. + +From particular instances we learn that the middle niphal may express + actions typically performed for \emph{one's own benefit}\pagenr{8a} and + typically \emph{reciprocal} actions\pagenr{8b}\note{though seemingly only for particular verbs}. +It seems that \emph{grooming} actions are very rarely middle-marked\pagenr{9a}. +Furthermore, many niphals are \emph{self-move} middles% + \footnote{This section seems to only reiterate parts of + S.W. Boyd, \emph{A synchronic analysis of the medio-passive-reflexive in Biblical Hebrew}, 1993.}% + \pagenr{9b}; + related to this, verbs of \emph{separation}, \emph{hiding} and \emph{body posture} frequently occur in the niphal\pagenr{10a}. +The niphal is used for verbs of \emph{gathering} --- + different from self-move middles in that they require two participants + and relate to Initiator--Addressee actives rather than Agent--Patient ones. +However, they are middles in various languages and can be grouped as such\pagenr{10b}. +A further use of the niphal is to denote spontaneous events\pagenr{11a}. +Niphals of intransitive qals may be + inchoative from qal\note{`become holy'}, + passive of piel\note{`be treated as holy'} or + reflexive of piel\note{`make oneself treated as holy'}\pagenr{11b}. +Finally, the niphal is used for + verbs of appearing\pagenr{12a}, + emotion and commitment\pagenr{12b}. + +The niphal probably wasn't passive originally% + \note{qal, piel and hiphil have internal passives and unlike those, the niphal has an imperative}, + but still has passive force for all stages that we have evidence for\pagenr{13a}. +It is marked by subject deletion or demotion\parnote{, + but differs from the self-move middle in that the Patient of the corresponding active remains a Patient (rather than becoming an Actor)}\pagenr{14a}. + +There are very few semantically direct reflexive niphals% + \note{many instances considered reflexive can be seen as middle or passive by the above categories}\pagenr{16a}. +In those few cases, it would be directly clear to the reader that it is\pagenr{17b}. +Hence\plainIdea{, but the author of the handout is generalising from the particular instance in Gn.~12:3 under consideration here}, + instances that \emph{can} be read as middle or passive should not be read as reflexive. + +\end{document} |