Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Schmuel <schmuel AT escape.com>]

Hi b-hebrew,

Bryan,
>Hi Steven,
>I would like to make a lateral move in the thread.  I find your thread 
>review interesting in what it leaves out from my own contribution.  Here's a 
>quote from my earlier response to your query:

Bryan,
>"Not only does v. 16 not have any sign of a question, as George mentioned, 
>it also features a clause-initial yiqtol form, which I think is highly 
>unusual in an unmarked question, particularly in a question that is not 
>parallel with a question.  Neither does a clause-initial yiqtol favor 
>indicative mood.  The vast majority of clause-initial yiqtols are 
>volitional, preferring the "may" or "let" translation like the KJV uses.  I 
>think context would have to be definite before we would prefer the 
>interpretation
>of v. 16 as a question.  I will let you decide if you think it is "definite 
>enough."

Schmuel
Yes, I agree that this was actually the single most helpful analysis of any 
on the thread :-)  Apologies for bypassing/overloooking it in my summary,  I 
did reference it elsewhere it elsewhere, however, where the question first 
arose, as the heart of the matter :-)

Bryan
>I think the above comment could be the key to understanding the proverb, but 
>I understand how such a comment can be overlooked.  The comment just does 
>not register sometimes.  Many students of BH have not been trained to pay 
>attention to the position of a finite verb within its clause and the 
>significance of word order.  However, I believe that the ancients were very 
>sensitive to this syntactical feature, and I suspect it is at least partly 
>responsible for the likes of Rashi who interpreted Pro 5:16 as expressing 
>the hope that one's disciples would increase.

Schmuel
Thanks.  I appreciate that you are coming from a point of what might be 
considered grammatical precision and nuance in the text and in the Hebraic 
commentators. 

Bryan
>(I personally find that the context in Pro 5:15ff. is not sufficient to 
>over-ride the syntax in v. 16.

Schmuel
:-)  That was sort of implied in your original, although much clearer here.

Bryan
>  I believe v. 16 expresses hope: "may your fountains break forth 
> streetwards, your irrigation canals into the plazas." I do not find v. 17 
> to contradict.  I understand that if the addressee is promiscuous, his 
> issue would emerge from sources that are not his alone. But v. 16 refers to 
> *his* fountains and *his* canals.  palgey mayim, in particular, is not an 
> image of unrestrained gushing forth such as the profligate man would 
> produce.  In particular, palgey mayim are irrrigation ditches that are 
> located carefully and through which the flow of water is regulated.)
>
>Lack of training in appreciation of syntax is also understandable because we 
>have yet to see a comprehensive explanation of the function of morpho-syntax 
>in poetry, which by the way, I personally believe is basically the same as 
>it is in prose.

Schmuel
Thank you very much for your excellent discussion here.  Just one remaining 
question.  When I saw a parallelism in verses 15 and 16 with 17 and 18 (I 
almost hesitate to look back :-) was that in line with what you are sharing 
above about the poetry ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/