bereshit

Peter Kirk Peter_Kirk at sil.org
Thu Mar 14 19:16:19 EST 2002


Ian, you are making me so angry by continuing to contradict yourself and
accuse me falsely that I am in danger of breaking my keyboard by typing
so hard. I think I had better drop this thread before I burst too many
blood vessels.

Peter Kirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 at mclink.it]
> Sent: 14 March 2002 22:50
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: bereshit
> 
> >Ian, I resent your implication that my "analysis is not from the
text".
> >I am trying to understand the text according to the best possible
> >analysis of the Hebrew.
> 
> You don't seem to offer *any* analysis based on
> linguistic phenomena.
> 
> >In the two translations you just offered to Paul you confirm what I
> >thought you were saying earlier, that in your opinion the whole of
verse
> >2 is dependent on bereshit.
> 
> I'll retract it at the moment if you are prepared
> to deal with the major concern. You avoid, yes,
> avoid, avoid the principal problem of the phrase
> br'$yt, which I continue to underline is the fact
> that such constructions *usually* govern VSO
> clauses. You have maintained radio silence on that
> matter from the start. This implies either that
> you accept it or you've got nothing so say against
> it but reject it for other reasons.
> 
> I wrote in my previous post that there are two
> possible ways (perhaps more) of dealing with the
> situation of the first clause being governed by
> b-noun. However, it is the fact that b-noun does
> govern VSO clauses that is the essence of the
> analysis. You simply do not deal with it. You
> seem to be sidetracked with ancilliary problems,
> ie you require evidence of b-noun governing
> longer structures, when you know that you can have
> recursive clause structures, ie subordinate
> clauses subordinating others. I will repeat though
> you seem restricted to dealing with secondary
> matters.
> 
> >This is the hypothesis I am arguing against.
> 
> I hereby abandon it now (to be taken up later)
> when you have done the analysis you should be
> doing.
> 
> >So when you say that I "require for some unclear reason that the
first
> >verse be syntactically attached to what follows," the reason is
simply
> >that that is what you have proposed.
> 
> Peter, you are avoiding the real problem. It is
> apparently a diversionary tactic.
> 
> >There may be an alternative
> >hypothesis that verse 1 is a detached fragment like a descriptive
> >heading, but we are not discussing that one.
> 
> It may be. What I proposed, and please read what
> I said in the first posts, was that br'$yt
> governed the first clause. That is the subject.
> I gather as you have nothing to say about it
> that you must accept it. Am I right? If not,
> why not?
> 
> >You claim that I am "not willing to deal with the numerous cases of
b-
> >noun governed clauses". I accept that there are many such cases where
> >there is one clause with an infinitive construct, and perhaps a few
> >cases of a sequence of clauses starting with an infinitive construct
> >continued by a WAYYIQTOL.
> 
> OK, is that the case in Gen 1:1? If not,
> why not?
> 
> When we have dealt with Gen 1:1 we should be
> able to continue onto the wider context.
> 
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> >I looked at one specific example, Numbers 7:1,
> >and showed that it is ambiguous and your understanding has been
rejected
> >by two quite independent recent translation teams.
> 
> (You might like to consider Eccl 12:3 for later as
> well. bywm plus a zillion subordinated clauses.)
> 
> >No one has offered an
> >example in which more than one clause is governed by b-noun and the
> >second clause is not WAYYIQTOL. Until they do, I continue to maintain
> >that your analysis of Genesis 1:1-2 is syntactically unique. Mine is
> >also unique, I accept, but lexical uniqueness is far more common than
> >syntactic uniqueness.
> 
> (Subordinated clauses, such as those governined by ky
> can reflect the requirement you put, but you
> arbitrarily exclude it. It is the subordination
> which is important not what subordinates it.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Peter_Kirk at sil.org]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-hebrew-
> 14207U at franklin.oit.unc.edu
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list