Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

If I say "I will decisionize the problem", I have created a new verb, by
adding a verbaliser to a noun. Why is it different if I say "I will decision
the problem", or "yesterday I decisioned the problem" - which shows that
this new word has the morphology of a verb. Surely the only difference is
that in the second case the verbaliser is a zero morpheme. No need to wait
until it catches on, it is a verb from the first time it is used. So I
disagree with your "A verb being used as a name still retains its character
as a verb, even though it fills a "nominal" slot" (notice how your whole
sentence has become a nominal qualified by a possessive adjective). It
really is not that simple.

To bring this back to Hebrew, you can't do this directly there I guess,
though words like ZAQEN can function as both adjectives and verbs.

Peter Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Washburn [mailto:dwashbur AT nyx.net]
Sent: 10 May 2001 18:33
To: Biblical Hebrew
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."