[b-hebrew] Re: agent or patient in Psa. 33:12?

Lisbeth S. Fried lizfried at umich.edu
Sat May 15 14:10:35 EDT 2004


> 
> 
> Liz F. wrote:
> 
> > NO.
> > 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
> clearly.
> 
> 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.  :-)

You had translated it "The people chose Him."
When there's no Him there in the sentence.
> 
> 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.  
However, you translated it as if that is what you believed,
otherwise you would have left out the object or put it in
parens.
> 
> 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.
> 
> --Michael Millier
> 
> P.S.
> 
> Liz wrote:
> 
> > I don't know of languages where 
> > the objects are dropped.
> 
> Wouldn't modern Hebrew be one?  Examples:
> 
> "EFO SAMTA?"  
> SAMTI SHAMMA MASH-MAQOM."
> 
> "ATTA OHEV?"
> "MAMASH!"
> 
> "MI ROTZEH?"
> "ANI, ANI!!!"
> 
> Once the object has been established by context,
> modern Hebrew speakers *often* drop the object, don't
> they?
All those above are incomplete sentences
and are ungrammatical by definition.
Now if you say that the object is understood by context,
then OK, then you put the object in parens to complete it.
But what object is understood here?
If the object were understood, then you'd definitely have BOW.
That is the pronoun to the understood object which would
be required to complete the sentence.
Liz Fried
A2
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
> http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list