Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Harold:

What I intended with my illustration is to show that even though many would 
consider what I said a question, it is grammatically a statement. Likewise, 1 
Samuel 11:12 "Saul will be king over us" is grammatically a statement, not a 
question. It is just context that shows that this has the force of a question 
in which the negative is expected for the answer. In this reguard, it is an 
indirect way of saying that no way would they accept Saul as their king.

For you to translate it as a straightforward question is a mistranslation. I 
see a failure to recognize a difference between grammar on the one hand, and 
the idiomatic use of language on the other. Idiomatic use sometimes misuses 
grammar to make a point. A translator, in order to make clear the thrust of 
an idiom, may "mistranslate" it to cover the idea that is being communicated, 
but that doesn't change the idiomatic use in the original language to 
something different. What I object to is to call this grammatically a 
question when it is not. It is idiomatically a question which, if stated as 
straight prose, would include a "not" in it.

Interesting, after starting this debate and giving the first example that I 
could think of in modern English the same idiomatic use, I heard and even 
said myself other statements that had the force of a question, but were 
grammatically not a question. And like the example I gave before and in 1 
Samuel 11:12, these statements understood as questions expected a negative 
response.

In looking through your list below, one feature of non-questions understood 
as questions is that they expected a negative response. That's an idiomatic 
use of the language that spans languages, another indicator that this use is 
not grammatical, but idiomatic.

Some were not even idiomatic questions, like Genesis 27:24. Similarly 1 Kings 
1:24, unless you include it as part of an extended question ending in verse 
27. Some, like Exodus 8:22 (26 in English) has a section started by "if..." 
which is often the indicator of a question, so you can't call this a hidden 
question.

To sum it up as I understand it, there is a statement, formulated as a 
non-question, that has the force of a question expecting a negative answer, 
designed to carry an understood idiomatic meaning. This same idiomatic use of 
the language can be used in other languages, showing that it is not a part of 
grammar, but human thought. Finally, often translators "translate" the 
meaning of an idiom in "mistranslating" the words, such as mistranslating a 
sentance as a question.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>

> 
> Dear Karl,
> 
> > And the people said unto
> >  > > Samuel, ‘Who is he who said, ‘Saul will be king over us?’?’ Allow
> >>  > us that we may cause him to die.”. In this case, that the second
> >>  > half of the question is understood as a question in itself, is
> >>  > not a grammatical feature, but a stylistic use of a statement to
> >  > > carry the idea of a question. Is that what you mean?
> 
> HH: One more time, Karl, this translation does not suit the 
> context. It would mean that people are quoting those who originally 
> said "Saul will be king over us."

That's exactly what they said. 

But I'll admit the thrust of the context is that this is a negative of what 
was meant, making this an idiomatic use where what is grammatically not a 
question is used as a question execting a negative response.

> But if they had said that, then 
> there would be no reason to kill them.

Part of the context.
> 
> > You have mistranslated the verse. You have put what was 
> > grammatically a statement in Hebrew into what is grammatically a 
> > question in English.
> 
> HH: No, I have not mistranslated the verse, because in Hebrew there 
> can be grammatically unmarked questions. There is a section on this 
> in Gesenius' Grammar (#150). Other examples listed include Gen 
> 27:24; Gen 18:12; 1 Sam 22:7; 2 Sam 16:17; 18:29; 1 Sam 16:4; 1 
> Kings 1:24; Is 28:28; Zech 8:6; Jonah 4:11; Ex 8:22; Judges 11:23; 
> 14:16; 1 Sam 20:9; 24:20; 25:11; 2 Sam 11:11; 15:20; Is 37:11; 
> 44:19; Jer 25:29; 45:5; 49:12; Ezek 20:31; Job 2:10; 10:9; 2 Kings 
> 5:26; Lam 3:28
> 
> > Getting back to B-Hebrew, notice how my question is framed 
> > grammatically as a statement, yet the context and inflection at 
> > the end change it to be understood as a question. And like the 
> > statement in 1 Samuel 11:12, it expects a negative response.
> 
> HH: What question of your are you talking about? I thought you were 
> giving a translation of 1 Sam 11:12, so how can it be like 1 Sam 
> 11:12? If you are trying to say that the statement in 1 Sam 11:12 
> is a statement that is supposed to be understood as a question, 
> then I reply, 'If it is supposed to be understood as a question, 
> then it is a question." If something is supposed to be understood 
> as a question, a translator probably needs to translate it as a 
> question.
> 
Not as a simple question, but a question expecting a negative response, i.e. 
in the case of 1 Samuel 11:12, that they do not want Saul to reign over them. 
However, the idiomatic use of a statement as a question imparts the idea with 
only a few words.

> >  While the Hebrew consonental text cannot show inflection, I see 
> > how the context can lead to the understanding that this is a 
> > statement that is to be understood as a question. (Incidently, it 
> > does not come near to quoting the question posed in 1 Samuel 
> > 10:27, but that grammatical question is part of the context 
> > leading to the understanding of the statement as a question.)
> 
> HH; Right.
> 
> > Whereas in English, the grammatical form indicating a question is 
> > the word order, that is not true in B-Hebrew. However, Bryan has 
> > shown that certain word constructs counterindicate questions, 
> > even the understanding of a statement as a question, among those 
> > the particular word structure found in Proverbs 5:16. There is no 
> > grammatical indication that it is a question, and I see no need 
> > to read it as a question.
> 
> HH: The context shows that Prov 5:16 is a question. There can be 
> grammatically unmarked questions in Hebrew. This is probably the 
> last comment that I am going to make on this thread, since I am 
> just repeating myself.
>
The reason you are repeating yourself, is becaues you have not made your 
point. More than one of us find that your argument as of yet unconvincing.
 
>                                       Yours,
>                                       Harold Holmyard
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm