[b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!
kgraham0938 at comcast.net
kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Thu Oct 5 10:17:18 EDT 2006
Hey thanks for the reply, it has always been my understanding that hayah did correspond to the 'b verb' in english. Like for instance Waltke & O'Conner says on pg 72.
In a verbless (or nominal) clause there is no verbal marker of predication. Hebrwe, like many other languages, including Latin and Classical Greek, may predicate an adjective or noun directly, without a copula (i.e some form of hayah, which corresponds to English 'to be').
So that is how I have always seen it, not to be say this is a trump card or anything but just my understanding of it and where it came from. And with regards to Gen 2:25 when you said "they came into a state of being naked." Were'nt they already naked? It does not seems to me that they were becoming nake but already naked. Another example I'd like to get your opinion on is 2 Chr 20:25.
vayih:yw yamiym $:lo$h boz:ziym , it looks to me that the verb is functioning more like a past progressive 'were plundering.' What are your thoughts?
KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine at twcny.rr.com>
> Dear Kelton,
> Not to answer for Peter, but to support him:
> I think clauses constructed with the verbal root HYH are not equivalent
> to noun sentences (a.k.a. verbless clause). In other words, I do not
> think of HYH as a copula. Rather it means refers essentially to a
> On the other hand, we can't force a particular wooden translation to
> work in every case of HYH. Sometimes HYH can even refer to someone
> "coming along" as in movement to a place.
> Genesis 2:25 in particular would be something like this: "They came
> into being naked."
> Hoping to help.
> kgraham0938 at comcast.net wrote:
> > Hello Peter,
> > I am curious about your statement about WAYIH:YW = become as opposed to
> 'were.' What do you think is the difference btw Judges 16:30 and Genesis 2:25?
> > WAYIH:YW $N"HEM `RWMMIYM.... would you translate this as "They became
> naked.." or am I misreading your point? Thanks
> > --
> > Kelton Graham
> > KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> > From: Peter Kirk
> >> On 03/10/2006 18:08, Chris and Nel wrote:
> >>> ... 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
> >>> fool of
> >>> myself on this board?
> >> The distinction may be that sentences in which "to be" is omitted are
> >> usually (always?) stative, indicating a continuing state, like English
> >> "be", whereas those starting with WAYHIY, and here with its plural form
> >> WAYIHYUW, indicate actions, like English "became". Thus a literal
> >> translation would be "And the dead... became more than the dead...". The
> >> meaning is of course "More people died... than...", an action. A
> >> translation like Kelton's "Those who were dead ... *were* many, more
> >> than..." is misleading because it suggests a state, a count of bodies
> >> already dead. But in fact we have an action here, a large number of
> >> people dying. (Dare I suggest a prototype of today's suicide bombers,
> >> except here we have an Israelite killing Gentiles in Gaza?)
> B. M. Rocine
> Living Word Church
> 6101 Court St. Rd.
> Syracuse, NY 13026
> (W): 315.437.6744
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew