[b-hebrew] third person as copulative

Michael Abernathy mabernathy at conwaycorp.net
Wed Nov 14 13:05:26 EST 2012

I understand both sides of the argument concerning the use of the 
pronoun as either a hangover from an ancient word that happened to sound 
like the pronoun but meaning "is" or a redundant (in English) pronoun.  
But I am a little confused how you deal with the passages where???? is 
used with another pronounlike Isaiah 7:28:

??????-????? ????????????

Do you understand this as "You are God Himself"?
Michael Abernathy

On 11/14/2012 7:33 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:
> isaac,
> ET in hebrew is a preposition (similar to MIN, EL, (AL, LIFNEY etc) 
> and a marker for direct object, and as such
> it is not specified for gender or number. it is the same ET for 
> everybody.
> now, AT, ATAH, HEM etc is a personal pronoun*, and is specified for 
> both gender and number.
> i think you confuse the two. now, i admit that it is logical to see 
> the pronoun as linguistically derived from the preposition
> (precisely bygender and number speciation). thiere is room for much 
> speculation here.
> probably, H* was used as the primordial semitic 2nd and 3rd pronoun, 
> from which we still have in hebrew HU, HI, HEM, HEN.
> the question of ATAH, AT, ATEM, ATEN is less understood. one would 
> like to conjecture a dative origin (thus, ATAH is ET-H*)
> for them, which became nominal later; but then there is the problem of 
> the truly hebrew dative forms (OTKhA, OTAKhetc).
> here, the situation is less clear.
> **
> *> isaac: 1. Food for thought: Does not the translation implicitly see 
> this HU as a verb?
> the translation is in english, and the two languages have a different 
> vision of the role of an auxiliary verb. in hebrew HU) is not 
> considered a verb.one argument for
> this is that it is not tense specified (past, present, future), while 
> the english TO BE is tense specified.
> > 2. If the "first person" may speak for himself as a "third person",
> > can not the first ?? AT or ET of Gen. 14:9 stand for ??? HU or ?? ZEH,
> > or even ?? HEM, as in 1Sam. 17:34, and Neh. 9:34?
> *i dont see the logic here. distorting an argument does not render it 
> incorrect.
> *
> nir cohen
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20121114/79fcf80a/attachment.html 

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list