[b-hebrew] Ps 25:11 imperative & waw
kwrandolph at email.com
Sat Apr 29 14:04:56 EDT 2006
Steve and Herman:
What I have said is that each lexical term has a
range of meaning, not just a single point. For
some terms, that range is large, for others their
range of meaning is rather small.
For both the Hebrew "W" and the English "that",
each has a range of meaning of which only a
small corner of each intersects, and then only
for a specific use of both. For both terms, they
intersect at the meaning "as a consequence",
"that would lead us to" or along that line. A
simple "and" does not carry that inflection,
but sometimes the "W" prefix does. Similarly
"that" sometimes carries that meaning.
I agree that for most uses of "that" that a "W"
prefix is not indicated, similarly for most uses
of "W" prefix "that" is the wrong translation,
but for a small portion of uses, ....
This is one of the things that I find so
interesting about lexicography, namely how
different languages treat what seem like
similar terms differently. It gives an insight
into the thinking processes behind the uses
Karl W. Randolph.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 at sbcglobal.net>
> Thanks Herman! Thanks for clarifying. I believe that. How would you
> translate Isa 53:2 & Ps 25:11 as literally as possible, but still make
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
> > There are no "waw-prefixes that need to be translated as 'that'".
> > There are only syntactical structures that, if we attempt to translate
> > them,
> > may result in employing a word 'that'. However, there is no relation
> > between
> > this word "that" and the word "w" in Hebrew.
> > Language is not built up of words, but of sentences.
> > שלום
> > Herman,
> > Rotterdam
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
More information about the b-hebrew