[b-hebrew] H-XT-Y at II Samuel 11: 3
fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr
Fri Jul 30 02:02:13 EDT 2010
----- Original Message -----
From: K Randolph
To: Arnaud Fournet
Cc: JimStinehart at aol.com ; b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] H-XT-Y at II Samuel 11: 3
>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
Ok so *implied* is not about Hebrew supposedly "lacking" something. It's
more about translation into a language where to be should appear or
"universal grammar" or the like.
This is what I understand.
>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.
If you have some time, I'd be interested that you develop a bit more the
grammatical issue(s) here.
More information about the b-hebrew