Is R)$YT even a "time" word?
pzellmer at sc.rr.com
Fri Mar 22 21:33:40 EST 2002
The reason why I drop the beth is because it was the preposition plus a time
noun that you used when you developed this whole rationale for the
proposition that compound (or, as you kept saying, complex) clauses can
modify BR)$YT. One example is your response to me on 6 March: "I think
nearly all the examples I've already given of inseparable preposition and
time noun forming a composite preposition such as bywm, b`t and btxlt each
have the same structure but I don't think you would want to call them
independent clauses." The fact that your proposition is based on parallels
to the forms found from "inseparable pronouns and time noun" is evident
throughout the early messages, and *this structure* is what you started
referring to by the shorthand "time phrase". It was not the syntactic
purpose for the structure to which you appealed. Therefore, if R)$YT does
not qualify as a time noun, your logic of the past several weeks falls
short. No stretch. Just your stated logic at the beginning of the thread.
That ends my five minutes of availability!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 at mclink.it]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 7:37 PM
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: Is R)$YT even a "time" word?
> As I have said Paul, I'm not talking about r'$yt, but
> br'$yt. When did Jeremiah received the word of God?
> At the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim. It answers
> a when question. It is therefore a time phrase. This
> is not a difficult concept and I see no reason for
> even questioning it.
More information about the b-hebrew