Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Daniel Wagner" <dan.wagner AT netzero.net>]

Dear listmembers:

Whatever else may be said "for" or "against" Dave's post below, i must say 
that he certainly understands well the essential elements of my view of Exod. 
3:14.

Dan Wagner

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 9:33 AM
Subject: RE: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")


> We can play with dictionary definitions of "nominal" etc. all day 
> long and not get to the crux of the issue here.  As the subject line 
> suggests, the question revolves around )A$ER and whether or not it 
> functions to "nominalize" an actual verb )EHYEH.  "Sitting Bull" is 
> not a good example of a verb functioning as a nominal because 
> "sitting" is actually an adjectival gerund, not a verbal form, so 
> "Sitting Bull" is a noun phrase with an adjective, not a verbal.  But 
> I'll let that pass.  A better example would have been "Dances With 
> Wolves."  I don't disagree that under Dan's analysis of )A$ER, 
> )EHYEH *functions* as a nominal, but it should be obvious that this 
> is an atypical function that actually violates (if I may use such a 
> term) the force of its grammatical form.  Hence, yes, it is being 
> used as a name, but it is still, in form and likely in meaning, a verb. 
>  I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for some to 
> grasp.  Function is not everything; if I say "I will decision the 
> problem" I have in essence created a verbal that doesn't exist and 
> have violated the grammatical form of the noun "decision."  Does 
> that mean that "decision" is no longer a noun and has become a 
> verb?  I don't think so.  Sometimes such a move catches on and a 
> new verb is created; witness what the computer world has done 
> with the word "interface."  But that doesn't mean it happens 
> automatically.  In a unique case like my sentence, or like )EHYEH 
> in Exodus 3:14, the word still carries its grammatical force even 
> though it's being forced into a usage that is outside that force.
> 
> All that is to say this: the claim a Hebrew could have understood 
> )ANI )EHYEH as a verbless clause is more than a little unlikely.  
> Common usage and the grammatical form of )EHYEH would have 
> forced a very different understanding of such a clause.  So if YHWH 
> wanted to say "I am )EHYEH" he had to find a different way to do 
> it.  Again, I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for 
> some.  Dan's suggestion that this was done by the insertion of 
> )A$ER as a "mark of subordination" (a term that I like, a very good 
> description of that word) has a lot of merit, and it was what is 
> supposed to be the topic of this thread.  But somehow we got off 
> track and wandered into dictionary definitions of "nominal" and the 
> notion that a word's grammatical form is negated if it's used in an 
> atypical way, a notion that I thoroughly reject as an unsupported 
> and unnecessary complication to the picture.  A verb being used 
> as a name still retains its character as a verb, even though it fills a 
> "nominal" slot.  It really is that simple.
> 
> Dave Washburn
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> "You just keep thinking, Butch.  That's what you're good at."
> 


NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net