Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

In a message dated 05/09/2001 6:34:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
dwashbur AT nyx.net writes:

<< > 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. >>>



I am having no such trouble, and please refrain from ad hominem attacks. It 
is a nominal in FUNCTION but a verb in FORM. How could this possibly have 
been missed in all this discussion? 

You yourself claimed that proper names may not always serve as nominals! 

I do not believe you understand what is under discussion here; hence, you 
sent this final inflammatory reply and chose selective parts of my post and 
ignored others. But since you have decided not to respond anymore, this 
should be the end of a very problematic part of this discussion. I will 
nevertheless attempt to clarify your misrepresentations of my arguments.



 <<< He seems to think it's possible to have it 
 both ways, but grammatically that's not how it works.  >>


I do not think it is possible for me to be any clearer in terms of what I 
claim. I have stated at least 7 or 8 times that in the second instance the 
claim is made that 'EHYEH is a proper name. Hence, it is a nominal. It's 
function is nominal. It is a verb in form, however; hence, it retains verbal 
associations that are part of the meaning conveyed by the name. Nominals in 
other languages, such as Greek, also have this power, with nouns derived from 
verb forms, namely, ARCH. To suggest that 'EHYEH as a proper name does not 
have any verbal associations is without basis, which is why you provide no 
meaningful evidence to support you point (see below on "Jehovah-Jireh").



<< Note in the 
 above statements that first it's obviously a verb, but then it's a 
 nominal with "verbal associations," whatever that means.>>


Again, both Dan and myself are exploring the question of the DIFFERENT uses 
of 'EHYEH in Exodus 3:14. DAN is the one who suggested that it is used in two 
different senses. I do not *believe* this. I am merely going along with that 
thought and exploring the point. DAN is the one who is suggesting that it is 
first used as a subject and copula and second as a proper name. Where we 
differ, and this is what you fail to understand, is that he thinks it is 
still acting as a finite verb and a proper name! I say no. I say if you want 
it to be a proper name/predicate nominative in an equative sentence, then it 
CANNOT also function as a finite verb! Do you understand this, now?



<<  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." >>


This is more concrete evidence that you do not understand what is going on 
here. Please explain for me where the subject, copula (expressed or implied) 
and predicate nominative are in the above clause. Besides that, "Jehovah" 
always has verbal associations as part of the *meaning* of the name. That is 
my point about 'EHYEH. Of course, one of the *many* portions of my post that 
you snipped out was my request that you prove your rather desperate claim 
that YHWH is not derived from a verbal root! You have no evidence, but you 
had to object because of the damage that YHWH used in a verbless clause does 
to your position, by illustrating my point. 


<<  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.  >>>



There is no way to continue with someone who 1) does not understand the basic 
points being made, who 2) contradicts himself, who 3) misrepresents my views 
on nearly every point, who 4) provides false analogies as a means of 
illustrating the point. Of course I will take issue with false statements you 
make. What did you expect me to do? If you choose not to respond (as you 
already have to several key points), then that is your choice. 
 

 
> [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. >>>



There are no such things. I have been as clear as one can be in making my 
point. I will not repeat myself just because you either continue to ignore it 
or do not understand it. 


 
> 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! >>>
  


How is it an ad hominem for me to point out your misrepresentation of what I 
wrote? I am not going to fail to comment or point out where you have 
distorted a point. To call you on it is not an ad hominem. 



> [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. >>



Dan is arguing for "I am - I AM." Please break down this translation's 
grammar so we can see where I believe you missed the point, again. 



>  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.  >>>



You simply don't get it, and I am through explaining it to you. If you go 
back on your comments below and respond to this message, but with these same 
misunderstandings and misrepresentations, then I will not respond to you at 
all. 


 
> [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. >>>



This is very typical of someone who simply does not understand the point but 
who wants to continue to object to the view he does not share. You offer 
nothing but a hollow observation devoid of any meaningful response to the 
points made. 


 
> [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. >>>



Oh, I see. It's an ad hominem when I suggest that you missed the point or 
ignore the evidence (both of which are demonstrable) but when you suggest the 
same about me, that's all well and good.

Your above replies are the clearest evidence yet that you do not understand 
the issues under discussion and you only wish to distort and contest the 
point. This is the same behavior you displayed on B-Greek, when Pal Dixon and 
I had a pleasant conversation and you just had to add meaningless comments of 
a theological nature that were obvious to all. 

I will not respond to you any further unless you stick to and deal with the 
grammatical issues at hand. 

Greg Stafford