I am a self-confessed language dunce studying at Seminary. I started learning Esperanto because I some how managed to get through Greek and Hebrew with out really understanding even basic grammar!

So, I'm now going back to my Hebrew, trying to make sense of the Hebrew verb system, using Esperanto.
Can anyone tell me if you think I've understood the following examples:

Qal: Simple active. Subject does something to the object.
He broke the jug.
Li rompis la krucxon.

Niphal: passive/reflexive of the Qal. Something is done to the subject.
He was broken.
Li rompigxis.

Piel: Complex active. Some idea of complication is added to the verb.
He broke the jug apart.
Li rompadis la krucxon.

Pual: Passive of Piel.
He was broken apart.
Li romadigxis.

Hithpael. reflexive of Piel. The subject acts on himself.
He broke himself apart.
Li sinrompadigxis.

Hiphil: Causative. The subject causes the object to do something.
He made the jug break. (by dropping it).
Li rompigis la krucxon.

Hophal: Passive of Hiphil.
He was made to break the jug. (when his wife found out his mistress had given it to him!)
Li rompigigxis la krucxon.

That last phrase is wrong I know, but it seems to follow the logic. Any suggestions?

Zamenhof was a good Hebrew scholar. Anyone got his email address?

I’m familiar with Hebrew and Esperanto, so that although I would not deem myself a Hebrew scholar, I think I can help answer your question.

Your Qal and Hiphil look right—indeed, Zamenhof probably got the idea for the causative suffix from Hebrew. Your Hophal looks correct to me, but an Esperanto speaker might have to think a little before wrapping their brain around it

I think your Niphal is correct, or at least the best possible. However, remember that the iĝ suffix in Esperanto does not necessarily denote a true passive; it merely indicates an intransitive “becoming”. I don’t remember whether the Hebrew Niphal has this same connotation—I think so, but I’m not sure.

For Piel and Pual, I suppose that the exact complication would vary depending on the verb. However, as I understand it, the suffix eg is what you’re after more than ad. The latter denotes continuing activity (as in Li ofte rompadis tasojn, “He used to break cups a lot”); eg indicates largeness or intensity (as in Li rompegis la tason, “He smashed the cup”).

For Hithpael, besides what I mentioned for Piel and Pual, you don’t use the iĝ suffix—the sin prefixed to the verb takes care of the reflexive.

And finally, though it is nice to have a one-to-one correspondence between the Hebrew verb forms and the Esperanto, as far as translation goes, one must really translate the thought rather than relying on a system.

If you want to look at Zamenhof’s translation of the Holy Bible, see La Sankta Biblio (note that the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books and the New Testament is not by Zamenhof).

P.S. Have you studied or do you plan to study Esperanto, or is this a matter of curiosity?

"P.S. Have you studied or do you plan to study Esperanto, or is this a matter of curiosity?[/quote]"

I've been studying Esperanto for a year now and am loving it. Mostly I've been studying by myself, but I now want to get involved in a local Esperanto conversational group.

I've found it incredibly useful to study Esperanto to learn basic things like the difference between a adverb and a adjective, more tricky things like what an active adverbial participle is, or the difference between an intransitive and a transitive verb, etc. Stuff like that just confused me before and the explanations in the Greek and Hebrew textbooks were totally unhelpful. The real problem is I wasted so much time trying to memorise paradigms to get through tests, I never really grasped the point of learning the paradigm in the first place.

To be honest I struggled to learn to spell English and for years I thought I was dyslexic, but now I realise that it is the English language that is dyslexic, not me!

Can you see why I love Esperanto so much?

Thanks for the tip about the Esperanto Bible too. I read it every day, and am becoming fairly confident in my comprehension of it.

Thanks also for your reply. I guess I'll just carry on suffering my poor aching head to get my head round the bizarre mysteries of the Hebrew Language.