Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: GregStffrd AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Cc: dwashbur AT nyx.net
  • Subject: Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")
  • Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:05:45 EDT


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page