[b-hebrew] Re: agent or patient in Psa. 33:12?
deborahmillier at yahoo.com
Sat May 15 10:43:03 EDT 2004
Liz F. wrote:
> You want LW to be the object of BXR.
> You want LW to be the thing chosen.
> LW can NEVER be the thing chosen....
> I am saying the same thing over and
> over again. I'm not responding to this
> thread any more.
Hi Liz. Sorry to have frustrated you so much! :-)
Look, I'm not trying to coax another response from you
to this thread. You have stated your decision
However, I did want to clear up a couple of items:
1) It was/is NOT my *position* or my *argument* that
"the people chose YHWH." That was how I initially
read the verse a few weeks back, and my **questions**
were intended to discover why this impression was
probably *not* correct. In other words, I
didn't/don't have a dug in stance; I didn't/don't
"want" the text to say anything...beyond what it says.
So please don't read me as if I did/do. :-)
2) I know it was my fault communicating, and my
hurried and sloppy translation didn't help, but I
NEVER was seeing LW as the object of BXR. NEVER! So
your frustration was rising from a belief that I held
a position which I in fact never held.
I understand why you thought that, however. :-)
My question was, "Why syntactically couldn't H(M
choose YHWH...LW (i.e., for itself)...if YHWH could
choose H(M...LW (i.e., for Himself), since both H(M
and YHWH are ms?" I think Karl, Jerry, Harold, and
Peter have given me adequate syntactic and contextual
reasons why my initial impression is untenable. Call
me dense; this is how I learn.
Thanks for yours everyone's help.
> I don't know of languages where
> the objects are dropped.
Wouldn't modern Hebrew be one? Examples:
SAMTI SHAMMA MASH-MAQOM."
Once the object has been established by context,
modern Hebrew speakers *often* drop the object, don't
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
More information about the b-hebrew