Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Re:morpho-syntax, was Proverbs 5:16 - a declaration or a question ?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Schmuel <schmuel AT escape.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Re:morpho-syntax, was Proverbs 5:16 - a declaration or a question ?
  • Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:13:01 -0500

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/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page