Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] morpho-syntax, was Proverbs 5:16 - a declaration or a question ?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] morpho-syntax, was Proverbs 5:16 - a declaration or a question ?
  • Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:49:26 -0600

Dear Bryan

You are still missing my point. I am saying that it is most unusual for a clause with a yiqtol in the first position of the clause to be an unmarked interrogative.

HH: Pardon me for being obscure, but you did not understand me. I recognized what you observed but said that I did not think it was decisive:

HH: There is an unmarked interrogative with a yiqtol form in 1 Sam 11:12. There is a noun subject that >precedes it, as it does in some other cases, but I don't see that that is decisive.

Quoting Gesenius is not really so helpful. We can quote some authorities that read the sentence as a question and some that read it another way. Appealing to authorities will leave us with little more alternative in a case like this than counting up votes--x authorities for question and y authorities for statement.

HH: I have not heard authorities on the other side except Gill, who is often biased. Delitzsch does not go with the interrogative, but his interpretation does not really work. The English translation has:

Shall thy streams flow abroad, the water-brooks in the streets!

HH: He means to say a jussive imperative and wants it to refer to unrestrained freedom within the marital relationship, but this requires putting a specialized, overly limited meaning on "outside" and "in the streets/squares," both of which terms imply public places.

HH: Gesenius is a good authority in grammatical matters. And we have already seen that a vast number of modern translations are based on taking the verse as a rhetorical question.

The existence of an unmarked interrogative in BH doesn't prove, of course, that Pro 5:16 is interrogative. Furthermore, I am trying to point out that a sentence with a yiqtol verb form in the first position decreases the probability that this particular clause is interrogative.

HH: This may be true, but it does not constitute a rule. It seems just an observation. It need not preclude the possibility of an understood rhetorical question in Prov 5:16. You're claiming that if there is an otherwise unmarked interrogative, then the subject and verb must switch their normal places in order for an interrogative to exist. I don't see that this is necessary. I've seen numerous unmarked interrogatives that seem to have normal sentence structure. It is the context that drives one to turn them into questions. On the word order of subjects and predicates Waltke and O'Connor say that "interrogatives tend, on the whole, to follow the same patterns as declaratives" (#8.4a).

Further-furthermore, I don't see where palgey mayim would be a fitting figure for promiscuity.

HH: Not all uses of palgey imply controlled water:

Is. 30:25 In the day of great slaughter, when the towers fall, streams of water will flow on every high mountain and every lofty hill.

Psa. 119:136 Streams of tears flow from my eyes, for your law is not obeyed.

Job 29:6 when my path was drenched with cream and the rock poured out for me streams of olive oil.

Lam. 3:48 Streams of tears flow from my eyes because my people are destroyed.

HH: The noun comes from a verb that means to divide, split. Such cleavage of channels can be divinely chaotic:

Job 38:25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm,

HH: You seem to say that the word must mean canal, but it obviously can mean more than that. "Stream" appears to be a good translation, and the stream does not have to be that controlled. So I find this a weak reason to overthrow a good interpretation. There are numerous synonyms given in the context: MYM , NZLYM, M(YNT, and PLGY-MYM.

HH: I see a contradiction between verses 16 and 17. The streets are the public streets. Verse 18 says that the waters are not to be shared with strangers, which is what would happen if they flowed in the streets. The water is the same water in verse 15-18. It cannot change into something else, since it is all one connected passage. The metaphorical meaning is gained by a total transfer of the water imagery to that of the husband-wife relationship. The whole unit transfers as one set of imagery.

HH: So it cannot be broken into two parallel passages as Steven suggests. Nor is that really possible grammatically, since the unmarked subject of verse 17 goes back to verse 16 for clarification. It cannot jump over verse 16 back to 15, as if verse 16 spoke of something different than verse 15. The springs (v. 16), fountain (v. 18), and well (v. 15) all refer to the same source of living water belonging to the man.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page