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: "Daniel Wagner" <dan.wagner AT netzero.net>
  • To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")
  • Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:41:52 -0400


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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page