Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Okay, I'm going to isolate a couple of statements Greg made to 
illustrate a point, then I'm going to quit trying to dialog with him:

[snip]
> << Second, who says a verb can't be 
>  used as a name? >>
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly do not! Yet you seem to think I do!
> 
> 
> 
> <<  Does the name Jehovah-Jireh, YHWH YR)H, 
>  ring any bells? >>
> 
> 
> 
> Why, YES, it does!
> 
> 
> 
> << There is no good reason why 'ehyeh can't function 
>  the same way without being considered a nominal. >>
> 
> 
> 
> If it is a proper name serving as the predicate in an equative sentence 
> then 
> it is a nominal. 

This is a clear self-contradiction.  Either it's a verb or it's a nominal. 
 I'm speaking grammatically here, which may be the part that Greg 
is having trouble with.  He seems to think it's possible to have it 
both ways, but grammatically that's not how it works.  Note in the 
above statements that first it's obviously a verb, but then it's a 
nominal with "verbal associations," whatever that means.  Jehovah-
Jireh is a full verbal clause, but I suppose that since it's functioning 
as a name it has to be a "nominal with verbal associations."  I see 
no way to continue a dialog with this kind of double-talk, so I'm just 
going to lay out some more of his statements to cement the 
illustration.  He will no doubt take issue; I will not respond.

[snip]
> If it is a name then it is a nominal, regardless of its verbal 
> associations. 
> When you use a proper name as the predicate in an equative sentence its 
> function is nominal. Otherwise it makes no sense. Now, when you look at the 
> nominal and seek to appreciate it, then the verbal associations come to the 
> fore. But to say, "I am I will be" ('EHYEH = verb [non-proper name]) it 
> meaningless. But to say, "I am I WILL BE" ('EHYEH = proper name) is proper 
> grammar with a nominal as the predicate in an equative sentence AND conveys 
> the verbal idea of 'EHYEH. 
> 
> 
> 
> << Names in particular often used 
>  verbs substantivally, but that doesn't change the essential verbal 
>  character of the word.  >>>
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that it did. 

Actually, there are at least two statements above to the contrary in 
which he says plainly that he considers 'ehyeh a nominal.  So I'm 
not sure what he's getting at here.  Either it's a verbal or a nominal.

I am sorry, Dave, but if you continue to misread 
> what I write then I will have to ignore you. Please address my specific 
> claims, and do not attribute to me things that I have not claimed. I am 
> sure 
> such conduct is inappropriate for this scholarly forum. 

Ah, the ever-popular "resort to ad hominem" approach!

[snip]
>  > << 'ehyeh is more than a word with a "verbal idea attached to 
>  >  it," it's an actual verb.  >>
>  > 
>  > 
>  > I think you need to pay better attention to what is being discussed. In 
> the 
>  > first instance Dan is claiming that it means "I am," acting as both the 
>  > subject and copula (or he gets the copula from somewhere else that is 
> not 
>  > clear to me). 

This is nothing even resembling what Dan said.  Perhaps that's part 
of the problem here.

He then views the second 'EHYEH as a ***NAME***. A name is a 
>  > nominal and, like YHWH, is frequently a part of a verbless clause. 

Here we go again.  It's a verbal but it's a nominal.  

[snip]
> My point was very specific: In an equative sentence such as that which Dan 
> is 
> offering, for 'EHYEH to serve as the predicate it MUST be a nominal if it 
> is 
> functioning as a proper name. I have maintained all along that the verbal 
> associations are still there. Indeed, it is that very point with which you 
> took issue! 

More double-talk.

[snip]
> You're welcome. "Somebody," as you said, has been and continues to not only 
> miss the point but make claims about points I am making which are 
> demonstrably  false. If you continue to do this and make wild claims 
> without 
> providing evidence, then I will ignore you completely. You really have not 
> contributed to this thread anyway, so I see no point in responding to what 
> you say unless you do by providing evidence for your claims.  

And we conclude with another ad hominem.  I will not respond to 
Greg again.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"You just keep thinking, Butch.  That's what you're good at."