Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

Thanks to all of you who responded to the numerous Ruth questions.  I'm not 
closing
off further responses.  I simply wanted to let you know how encouraging it is 
for
these young men to realize that their questions are considered non-frivolous 
by others
studying the language.

Because my direction to them was to find the things that they think as 
unusual, I
expect them to come up with more in the future.  I personally have found it 
to be a
good learning technique, resulting in the discovery that some of the 
"unusual" forms
are actually the normal manner of expression in the Hebrew.  It has greatly 
improved
my understanding and interpretation of the text.  If their questions ever 
become too
much of a burden, just let me know and I'll shortstop some of them.

Although all the threads involved serious questions, I wanted to follow up on 
only
this one.

(The question here asked why the imbedded speech in Ruth 1:10 started with 
KIY.  Jim
West's response is not quoted.)

Jim, I agree that the clause works just fine without the KIY, which is why I
personally leaned toward the KIY introducing an X-yiqtol clause as opposed to 
the KIY
)ITFK in toto being the X element.  But the question remains as to its 
function in the
Hebrew.  After all, although found frequently, it is not the predominant form 
of
construction for imbedded speech.  Many times the purpose for a PLP (Longacre 
referred
to such items as "Pesky Little Particles") seems to be found only on the 
discourse
level of investigation.  I'll add this to my list of situations for which to 
keep my
eye peeled.

Peter, I think I'm leaning toward your correlation of this with the LO) KIY.  
Perhaps
the omission of the LO) would change the translation from "No, but ..." to 
simply "But
...", but it does fit the conditions of being a reply stating opposition to a 
previous
suggestion by another.  (Cf. Gen 19:2b, where Lot's suggestion is positive, 
but the
angels use LO) KIY to counter it.)

Thanks again,

Paul


peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG wrote:

> 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

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

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph