Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
peal pael aphel
I was wondering if anyone has done or knows of a good study on the inter-relationships between these 3 verb forms. I know aphel is generally regarded as the causative form of peal. In other words, if the peal word is "to die", then the aphel word is "to cause to die", or something like "to murder" or "to execute" or "to slay".

But my main question is the relationship of the pael form to the peal form. If one knows the peal word, is there a way to then quickly assume what the pael word is as well? I realize I am asking something that may be unanswerable, but just thought I would give it a try.
Jerry, the pael is considered to be the intense form of the peal. For example "tebar" (pronounced "tevar) meaning to break while "tabbar" pronounced (tabbar) would be to utterly and completely break, destroy. A common feature of the pael form is the doubling of the middle radical thus making that letter hard if it's one of the "BGDKPT" letters.
If you know the paradigm and know the root, you could definitely infer a pael form but not all verbs have a pael form, and some verbs only have a pael form and not a peal form...

Thanks for the reply lebaryo,

Yes, that is what I found as well when doing some research on it. Although even the Hebrew grammar book that I looked at considered "intensive" to be just one of numerous aspects.

"The piel stem is the most difficult to define ... can convey a variety of connotations ... no single category is an adequate description ...." They did however use "intensive" as their default connotation.

One thing that I have experimented with is thinking of pael as a resultant condition of peal. In your example, "destroy" would be a resultant condition of "to break". Or "break so-as-to destroy". But it is just something that I have toyed around with for now.

Best regards
One thing I looked at yesterday was a root that had a very defined translation for the peal and pael, where there could be little dispute on the translation itself. It is the ZBN root for "buy" and "sell". Peal is the "buy" and Pael the "sell". In that case, "sell" is actually an antonym of "buy". Although, it might be loosely regarded as a resultant condition of to "buy", considering that one typically has to buy first, before they can sell. As in "buy so-as-to sell".

Just some rambling thoughts, I guess.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)