Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Just two points of clarifications on my view:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Peter Kirk <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 2:51 PM
Subject: RE: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")


> Dave, I don't want to get into further argument between prescriptive grammar
> (this is right, this is wrong) and descriptive grammar (the language is what
> people actually speak, not what the teachers say they should speak) as that
> is irrelevant to the main point. (However, I do object to your arrogant
> defence of a debatable position in the words "the fact - yes it is a
> fact -". I was just reading on another list of someone who disliked
> generative grammar because its proponents are seen as arrogant. This would
> seem to confirm that prejudice.) I am not trying to argue that the grammar
> here is anything outside the common Hebrew usage, though perhaps Dan is.

I admit it's possible since what we have is a certainly unique, but to the 
contrary, i think he is using an ordinary grammatical function of each of the 
words involved to convey a meaning with as much simplicity as possible for 
something so unusual, yet with an added rhetorical element. The rhetorical 
element is the repetition of _)EHYEH_, a form connoting a covenant 
introduction language, for both the introduction of the name and for the name 
itself. (In contrast to some of the other alternatives recently summarized by 
Dave Stabnow.) But i don't see any reason to conclude that the grammatical 
function was itself unexpected, and certainly was not miscommunicative in 
light of the full context (14b). Greg correctly emphasized that the 1CS verb 
does not normally introduce a name, but it does regularly introduce some 
aspect of God's covenant relationship, and here it's used to introduce the 
name (1) to avoid problems with the standard "verbless" noun clause with 1CS 
pronoun and 1CS verb, (2) because of rhetorical purposes i've noted.

> 
> So let me try to explain my view in terms which at least approximate to the
> generative grammar which you approve of. The following tree is designed to
> work with a fixed space font. This is how I would
> parse )EH:YEH ):A$ER )EH:YEH according to Dan's understanding of )EH:YEH as
> a name:
> 
>         S
>        / \
>       / Complement
>      /   /     \
>     /   /       NP
>    /   /       /  \
>   /   /       /    S
>  /   /       /    / \
> P   V       C    P   V
> |   |       |    |   |
> 0 )EH:YEH ):A$ER 0 )EH:YEH
> I     am  named "I   am"
> 
> (Note: the gloss "am" is for simplicity and not intended to indicate my
> position on the present-past-future debate.)
> 
> Actually the tree looks just the same on the more traditional "I am that I
> am" understanding, it is just the English glossing and the meaning which is
> different. The name is (at least arguably) not just the verb )EH:YEH but the
> whole sentence consisting of this verb form and the elided pronoun. As I
> understand it (though without reading all of this correspondence in detail)
> Dan is taking ):A$ER, normally a complementiser or relativiser (C), as some
> kind of indicator that what follows is a name. 

See also my other post arguing that _):A$ER_ is not essentially a relative 
pronoun nor even a relativiser, but a sign of subordination. Thus, without 
intrinsic translatable meaning, just like _)ET_ as a sign of the accusative, 
it's function is always and uniquely syntactic, and therefore *all* of our 
"translations" of this word are actually only glosses of its syntactic 
*implications* for the different structure of the target language. (Most 
Hebrew function words have translatable meaning inherent within them, but a 
few do not; we are not even glossing such words in our translations, only 
their functional equivalents into good English.)

Dan Wagner

> Even if there were no ):A$ER
> and no elided pronoun, I would still parse something like:
> 
>    NP
>    |
>    V
>    |
> )EH:YEH
> 
> i.e. )EH:YEH is a verb at a lower level, but functions as a noun phrase at a
> higher level.
> 
> Now how does that pass for generative grammar?
> 
> Peter Kirk
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Washburn [mailto:dwashbur AT nyx.net]
> Sent: 11 May 2001 19:44
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: RE: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So I
> > disagree with your "A verb being used as a name still retains its
> character
> > as a verb, even though it fills a "nominal" slot" (notice how your whole
> > sentence has become a nominal qualified by a possessive adjective). It
> > really is not that simple.
> 
> Actually it is.  There's an elided object and relativizer in your
> sentence that the reader implicitly understands because of the use
> of the quotation marks: *So I disagree with [your statement that
> says] X" etc.  This is why I greatly prefer generative grammar over
> functional grammar: it has much greater explanatory adequacy.
> 
> > To bring this back to Hebrew, you can't do this directly there I guess,
> > though words like ZAQEN can function as both adjectives and verbs.
> 
> Don't the lexicons recognize these as homonyms?  I'm afraid
> you're trying too hard, Peter.  It is very possible that in 'ehyeh 'a$er
> 'ehyeh we have an instance of "bad" Hebrew grammar.  I don't think
> this is part of Dan's view (which is what we're actually discussing),
> but it's a possibility and could explain how the second 'ehyeh and
> the next occurrence could function as a name even though it's a
> verb.  We have a similar example in the Greek of the NT.  I don't
> recall the reference right offhand, but someone comes to Jesus and
> says "If you can, please do this."  Jesus replies, TO EI DUNH,
> which roughly comes out "As for your 'if you can', it's done."  This
> puts a definite article on a conditional clause.  It gets the point
> across, but it's a violation of Greek grammar.  Revelation is full of
> such examples.  The first chapter, I think it is, includes the clause
> APO HO WN.  APO is a preposition that takes a genitive object,
> but HO WN is a nominative.  Again, bad grammar.  "Decisioned" is
> in the same category as "bad" English.  Violations of accepted
> grammatical patterns happen all the time and they're a fact of life.
> It's also a fact of life that they are perceived as such by hearers.
> Obviously grammatical rules aren't carved in stone, and hence we
> have diachronic linguistics.  But from a synchronic point of view, we
> have to deal with the fact - yes it is a fact - that "decisioned" is a
> noun that has been incorrectly morphed into a verbal slot.  Bringing
> the discussion back to where we began, in the case of 'ehyeh we
> have a verb that may be occupying a nominal slot.  That doesn't
> make it a morphological or grammatical nominal.  It makes it an
> oddity, which is probably why we're having so much trouble with it.
> 
> 
> Dave Washburn
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> "You just keep thinking, Butch.  That's what you're good at."
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [dan.wagner AT netzero.net]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> 
> 


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