[b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!
jerry.shepherd at taylor-edu.ca
Tue Oct 3 13:19:05 EDT 2006
I understand your confusion. But this is actually a fairly standard way Hebrew narrative talks about “being” in the past – by the use of hayah, either in the perfect or with wc+impf. Without it, the sentence could mistakenly be taken as present.
Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
Associate Professor of Old Testament
11525 - 23 Avenue
Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
Email: jerry.shepherd at taylor-edu.ca
From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Chris and Nel
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:09 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!
Sorry Folks, but for those who are bemused at my 'daft'? question please
allow me to indulge. For someone who is still young at the art of trying
to understand the hundreds of ways to translate without looking at the
english, YES, Judges 16:30, does present a minor confusion for me. The
context and the word RaBaH (many) seem to me to translate just as well
without the verb "to be"? Now it is obvious that I am utterly wrong - that
know! There are myriads of sentences where the verb "to be" is not used and
yet 'known and correctly assumed' from the translation. My problem is that
beginning this particular sentence with that verb actually threw me off
course, when I continued to translate it as if the verb was not there then
to my shock I actually translated it correctly (Mmmm, now that's a miracle).
This shows that I am doing something wrong (even though I got the answer
correct). I am so used to
reading sentences without "to be " in them that I still can not fathom its
purpose here, considering that without it I actually arrived at the correct
translation without looking at the English.
Now can someone be kind enough pleeeease..... to relieve me of my making a
myself on this board?
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew