[b-hebrew] That piece of halibut was good enough for YHWH

Jane Peters janepeters13041939 at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Jan 25 22:24:35 EST 2008


Thanks for all your helpful replies!
   
  * * * * *
   
  On 'All I said was’:
   
  Ø  Pere Porta:
  Ø  In Gen 20:11 there is "amarty raq" ...
  Ø  1. Why to use DBR and not )MR? 2. Why to use L'... KI 'M and not RQ? 3. Is L'MR the word that appears in Rt 2:15?
   
  Jane:
  That’s great. The translation we came up with here was clumsy, I admit, but I had problems with coming up with an equivalent idiomatic expression. I'm definitely discarding what we first came up with. And there’s no good reason for DBT or L’MR. 
   

Ø  Karl W. Randolph:

Ø  First of all, in analyzing the English, are there other ways of stating the English?

 

Jane:

That’s a helpful hint for translation, thanks.

 

Ø  Karl W. Randolph:

Ø  If the emphasis is on the "only", then where does it fit? Does it modify "I said" or the sentence that was said? Pere Porta and Yitzhak are correct in indicating that RQ is the correct word to use for "only", but it always precedes what it modifies. Not having seen the film, nor having heard of this sentence before, I am not sure which one is meant.
  
  Jane:
  RQ should modify )MR.
   
  Ø  Uri Hurwitz:
  Ø  kol asher amarti
   
  Jane:
  Thanks, Uri. I wonder if KL is used in a way that puts a stress on the sense of 'only'? I suspect RQ may be better for this emphasis.
   
  * * * * *
   
  On the Halibut:
   
  Ø  Pere Porta:
  Ø  Why do you use the demonstrative in masculine? Should HHW' not be in
  Ø   the 
  Ø  feminine: HHY', because the noun to which it refers is feminine?
   
  Jane:
  PW+YT is feminine, huh? HHY' it is, then.
   

Ø  Karl W. Randolph:

Ø  Different types of fish were not listed in Bible, so as Yithak translated, just using the word for "fish" is probably the way to go.
   
  Jane:
  You’re right, of course. But using PW+YT is more precise even if possibly anachronistic, and it adds to the humour. 
   

Ø  Karl W. Randolph:

Ø  the concept of YHWH being pleased to eat is problematic ideationally
   
  Jane:
  Undoubtedly. But there’s probably quite a lot in ‘The Life of Brian’ that’s problematic in this regard.
   
  * * * * *
   
  On: “Good enough for”:
   
   

Ø  Karl W. Randolph:

Ø  In the context, it appears that "that pleasing this fish for eats to YHWH" would fit the grammar...Thus one translation could be: RQ )MRTY KY +WB HDG HZH L)KLH LYHWH where the emphasis is more on "to eat" than "to YHWH"

 

Jane:

Thanks for that, that's great! The emphasis should definitely be on YHWH, however. Could I shift L)KLH LYHWH to between KY and +WB?

 

And it should be “that” fish. The speaker had just finished his wife’s meal, and was referring to the fish he had just eaten.

 
   
  Ø  Uri Hurwitz:

Ø  tov hayah b'eynei elohim

 

Jane:
  Some of the humour of the saying in ‘The Life of Brian’ is in the image of YHWH eating fish (for which the person gets stoned). I think b’eynei elohim loses some of that direct meaning.
   
  * * * * * 
   
  On: the language:
   

Ø  Yitzhak Sapir:

Ø  why Biblical Hebrew?  During the time of Jesus, a form of Mishnaic Hebrew as well as Aramaic and Greek were spoken.

 

Jane:

It was just for the fun of turning it into Biblical Hebrew. I was going to say something about this, and I guess I should have.

 

* * * * *

 

On: Mishnaic Hebrew translations:

 

Ø  Yitzhak Sapir:

Ø  In any case, I think the following would have passed for Mishnaic Hebrew, but I'm not sure: rak ?amarti $e?oto dag dayyo haya liyahweh. I only said that that fish was enough for Yahweh.

 

Jane:

What letter does the question mark stand for in “$e?oto” ? 

 

 

Ø  Uri Hurwitz:

Ø  Now towards the end of second temple days the language was more   Mishnaic, and the approximate translation: "Kol sheamarti: dag zeh day tov hayah lamakom".

 

Jane:

Thanks again, Uri. 

 

 
   

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list