Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

This one looks to me like a case of KIY marking strong contrast. I 
remember we discussed this on the list a few months ago but I don't 
remember the context. Apparently LO) KIY is common in contradicting 
replies with the meaning "No, but/rather", and KIY )IM can also mean 
"but rather"; and sometimes KIY on its own has this meaning. BDB only 
notes cases "after a negative", here there is an implied negative 
"Don't come with me". Holladay offers Gen 31:16 as an example of this 
with an implied negative, though not as a reply.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Why the KIY?
Author:  zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph at internet
Date:    19/03/1999 11:43


Sometimes the questions the young scholars ask remind me of the 
questions of two-year-olds.  This next one is seems like that 
perennial question, "Why?"

In Ruth 1:10, the group wants to know why the imbedded speech 
begins with KIY.  Their leaning right now is that it could be an 
entire verbless relative clause that is being fronted.  To 
"unfront" it and thus show what they see the unmarked form as 
being, it would translate something like, "We are returning to 
your people so that (we can be) with you."  The other main option 
that they put forward was an X-yiqtol relative clause that 
explained why they were kissing and crying and calling out (not 
necessarily in that order!): "Because (it is) with you (that) we 
are returning to your people."

What think ye?

Paul

--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran 
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph





---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.