[b-hebrew] XSD

Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya.org
Tue Aug 23 09:06:41 EDT 2005


On 23/08/2005 01:45, Karl Randolph wrote:

> ...
>
>>Well, the first clause in this verse starts at the beginning and 
>>continues until XESED HU', with 'ASHER introducing a clause 
>>subordinate to this one. The sentence structure in fact seems to 
>>state that it is the man who is XESED, but it could be interpreted 
>>that the whole situation is so descibed. But I don't see that the 
>>meaning could a description of what follows, which is separated off 
>>by the VAV conjunction attached to a QATAL verb (i.e. WEQATAL) 
>>which always indicates a new clause.
>>
>>    
>>
>Looking at the verse, the )$R precedes the XSD HW) so that 
>the latter is either part of the subordinate clause, or 
>the introduction to the following clause. ...
>

Not at all. )$R introduces a subordinate clause which is very often 
embedded within the main clause. And that seems to be what is happening 
here (Lev 20:17), at the formal syntactical level, literally "A man {who 
takes his sister, daughter of his father or daughter of his mother and 
sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness} he/it is XESED." {...} 
indicates the embedded clause. Formally HU' is a resumptive pronoun 
referring back to the man.

>... I read it as the 
>latter.
>
>Secondly, does the WAW prefix on a verb always indicate a 
>new clause, ...
>

This is my understanding.

>... or only when affixed on a Qatal? I read the WAW 
>to have the same force as on the final verb in Isaiah 53:2. ...
>

I would read this as a separate clause "(he had) no appearance ... we 
desired him". The semantic link between these clauses is a difficult 
question.

> 
>... 
>On a related issue, when I see applications of a noun that 
>is used well over 100 times in Tanakh, all of them having 
>one meaning and only once apparently having a different and 
>opposite meaning, I then question why? Is this a special 
>figure of speach? Did I misunderstand the text? Is there 
>possible copyest error? Is this a loan word from another 
>language that just happened to have the same form as a 
>previous lexeme in the language (though in this case, with 
>Torah being the earliest section of Tanakh, it is very 
>unlikely)? Are we looking at an unusual though acceptable 
>grammatical construct? Is this slang? In short, a one time 
>opposite use raises many red flags.
>  
>

I agree with you, Karl. I am not like Harold, relying on authorities. 
But I have looked at the context of these three uses of XSD, and I 
cannot see a way in which they are not a very different sense of the 
word than the typical one - which is itself rather diverse. But one 
thing I understand but you don't seem to, is that in Hebrew like every 
other language many words have very diverse meanings, and it is 
dangerous to assume otherwise.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: 22/08/2005




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list