Biblical Hebrew Forum

["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.

[snip]
Note: I read material like this and then think "And I'm the one who 
gets accused of sounding arrogant."  But I'll let that pass.  It's easy 
to say "Because the phrase FUNCTIONS as a nominal, it IS a 
nominal, but it's another matter to prove it grammatically.  I've 
already been over this with Peter, and it's clear we're not going to 
resolve it because we're beginning with two completely different 
theories of grammar.  My child might use a telephone book as a 
booster chair, but because it FUNCTIONS as a booster chair does 
not mean it IS a booster chair.  If I say "Hand me the sky" it is not 
a valid sentence simply because I said it.  The rest of Alan's post 
is old ground that I have already dealt with, so I will refer the 
interested reader to the archives in the interest of bandwidth.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"You just keep thinking, Butch.  That's what you're good at."