lgmay at mindspring.com
Thu Mar 14 19:25:57 EST 2002
Doesn't "bereshit" sound like what you would find in the woods after the
bear comes out?
My question is about Genesis 1:1. Are the seven Hebrew words a complete
statement or any there any reason to continue to verse two. That is is verse
one a complete statement and verse 2 and following speak of a restoration
that was necessary because of the rebellion of Lucifer/Satan.
Peter Kirk wrote:
> 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
> > >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
> > >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'$yt, which I continue to underline is the fact
> > that such constructions *usually* govern VSO
> > clauses. You have maintained radio silence on that
> > matter from the start. This implies either that
> > you accept it or you've got nothing so say against
> > it but reject it for other reasons.
> > I wrote in my previous post that there are two
> > possible ways (perhaps more) of dealing with the
> > situation of the first clause being governed by
> > b-noun. However, it is the fact that b-noun does
> > govern VSO clauses that is the essence of the
> > analysis. You simply do not deal with it. You
> > seem to be sidetracked with ancilliary problems,
> > ie you require evidence of b-noun governing
> > longer structures, when you know that you can have
> > recursive clause structures, ie subordinate
> > clauses subordinating others. I will repeat though
> > you seem restricted to dealing with secondary
> > matters.
> > >This is the hypothesis I am arguing against.
> > I hereby abandon it now (to be taken up later)
> > when you have done the analysis you should be
> > doing.
> > >So when you say that I "require for some unclear reason that the
> > >verse be syntactically attached to what follows," the reason is
> > >that that is what you have proposed.
> > Peter, you are avoiding the real problem. It is
> > apparently a diversionary tactic.
> > >There may be an alternative
> > >hypothesis that verse 1 is a detached fragment like a descriptive
> > >heading, but we are not discussing that one.
> > It may be. What I proposed, and please read what
> > I said in the first posts, was that br'$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
> > >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
> > >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.
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [lgmay at mindspring.com]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu.
More information about the b-hebrew