Biblical Hebrew Forum

[alanf00 AT home.com]

From:                   "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
To:                     Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Date sent:              Thu, 10 May 2001 06:33:10 -0700
Subject:                RE: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14  (was "I AM")
Priority:               normal
Send reply to:          "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>

To Dave Washburn:

Let's get to the heart of why I think you're arguing illogically. You 
said:

> 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

It matters not whether it is an atypical function -- in THIS instance, 
according to Dan's analysis, because the phrase FUNCTIONS as a 
nominal, it IS a nominal. In your example of the name "Dances with 
Wolves", the fact that the verb phrase functions as a nominal turns 
it into a nominal. The two examples are parallel, yet you claim not 
to see it in the case in point here.

> that actually violates (if I may use such a term) the force of its 
grammatical form.

What?

> Hence, yes, it is being used as a name, but it is still, in form and 
likely in meaning, a verb.

A nominal is a word or word group functioning as a noun. That's all 
there is to it. The word group in question contains a verb, but in 
Dan's analysis it functions as a name, as a noun, as a nominal. 
Why is this so hard for you to admit?

> I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for some to 
grasp.

Ditto.

> 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.

I do, because that is the way a dynamic, living language works. 
When you create a verbal such as in your example, the very act of 
creating it causes it to exist. It exists because of your usage of it, 
and it exists in the minds of those who hear you use it and who 

then understand it. Your talking about creating a verbal that doesn't 
exist is a contradiction in terms.

Actually your example here is an example of the rhetorical fallacy 
often termed "either-or thinking", i.e., reduction of alternatives to 
only two when others exist. You say that "decision" would be 
transformed from a noun into a verb, which you imply is silly, and 
then present only that and its opposite -- no transformation -- as 
alternatives. Clearly, a third and correct alternative exists: once you 
have created a brand new verb -- "decision" -- then in the contexts 
in which you have used the word, "decision" is sometimes a noun 
and sometimes a verb.

Your fallacy is illustrated again in your next statement:

> 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.

Of course it happens automatically. The very act of creating a new 
verb brings it into existence. That's what "create" means.

It is irrelevant to the process of creation whether a new word 
catches on or not. When I was a pre-teen, somehow a new verb "to 
klepto" caught on among the kids (from "kleptomaniac"; "he 
kleptoed my pen"). It was used commonly for part of a school year. 
Are you claiming that merely because words like that are not used 
anymore, they do not exist? They most certainly begin their 
existence from the first time someone creates the new word. They 
cease to exist only after all traces, written and in the minds of 
speakers of the language, cease to exist.

> 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.

The word or phrase may well carry much of the grammatical force 
of the common verbal usage, but that's beside the point. The point 
is that a verbal form used as a name is a nominal -- period. By 
using a word in a new way that is understandable to listeners, you 
have brought a new form into existence. Its existence may be as 
ephemeral as these email discussions, but it certainly exists at 
least as long as we are talking about it.

> ... 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.

Of course it retains its character as a verb, just as the name 
"Dances with Wolves" retains a verbal character. But it is not a 
verb -- it is a name, a noun, a nominal. It really is that simple.

Alan Feuerbacher