Re: LW again -- Noun and verb

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 08:10:46 +0200 Christophe Grandsire
<christophe.grandsire@...> writes:
> En réponse à "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...>:
> > So the question would appear to be:  is this Hebrew construction
> > which forbids an agent formally marked?
> AFAIK yes, it's formally different from the active voice, and also
> different
> from the passive which allows the agent to be obliquely marked.
>   I'd like to see some
> > examples, if possible.
> I don't have my booklet here, but I will check that at home. If I'm
> lucky
> enough to receive my new modem today (it should arrive today
> indeed), I should
> be able to give you an example in the weekend. Else, we'll have to
> wait until Monday :(((( .
> Christophe.
-

Okay, i've been trying to figure out what you all are talking about.  I
think i may have gotten it.

Hebrew has 3 passive paradigms (binyanim):
(hebrew |binyanim| are named after the past 3rd person male singular
form)

nif`al (niCCaC) = simple passive
pu`al (CuC:aC) = passive of the intensive
huf`al (huCCaC) = passive of the causative

in addition, there is the _nitpa`eil_ (nitCaC:eC) form, a passivized
version of the reflexive paradigm, which only differs from it in the
past; and the _pa`ul_ form (CaCu:C), a passive participle based on the
simple (pa`al/qal, CaCaC) paradigm that only exists in the present.

If you're talking about the difference between |hamikhtav katuv| (in
pa`ul) and |hamikhtav nikhtav| (in nif`al) for "the letter is written", i
guess it sounds more natural to say |hamikhtav nikhtav `al-yedey
hashomeir| "the letter is written by the guard" in |nif`al| form, than to
use the |pa`ul| form there.  But we'd better check with Dan Sulani's
children to make sure :-) .


-Stephen (Steg)
 "I just wanted you to tell me the truth
  You know I'd do that for you..."
     ~ "running away" by hoobastank