[b-hebrew] H-XT-Y at II Samuel 11: 3

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Thu Jul 29 16:00:02 EDT 2010


Arnaud:

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr>wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: K Randolph
> To: Arnaud Fournet
> Cc: JimStinehart at aol.com ; b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:08 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] H-XT-Y at II Samuel 11: 3
>
>
>
> ***
> I'm interested to have an example of "wrong" vowels.
> A.
> ***
>
>
> You just joined this list, but here’s a posting I made earlier on the same
> subject that covers the question in greater detail, giving two examples:
>
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2010-June/042213.html
>
> Karl W. Randolph
> ***
>
> To be frank, I'm not really convinced by this example (Proverbs 1:19).
> My objection is that proverbs and "fossilized" or ritual (or legal)
> formulas tend to present odd syntactical features.
> Cf. Boys will be boys (not a future),


Yes a future, from the culturally recognized deitic center.


> dura lex sed lex (no verb), etc. Some sentences of Archaic Latin in Plautus
> are just amazing.
>
> In that example you are trying to interpret a similar formula according to
> the regular synchronic syntax.
> There may be a flaw in that process. But I'm not competent enough in the
> language to say if you are right or not.
> This is more a theoretical objection.
> I noticed "KN with its **implied** “to be” ": so the syntax is indeed odd!?
>

No, that is a common use of that word. The context indicates whether that
implicit “to be” be made explicit or not. Standard procedure in the
language.


> What would be a regular sentence with the same meaning and the same words?
>

That’s just it, I made two regular sentences out of what is otherwise
twisted grammar that really doesn’t mean anything as pointed.

>
> Arnaud Fournet
>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list