Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

@ Vadim

I understand what you are saying, however, I don't think "I will be who I 
will be" answers Moses' question.

Moses ask "What is your name?" paraphrase.

YHWH answers " I will be who I will be."

That does not make sense.  That is why I think I am who I am is the best 
translation.


--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> 
> > @Vadim: You wrote 
> > Whether a translation asnwers a particular question is irrelevant, though 
> > one can prefer "I am" to "I will be" only on theological grounds. What is 
> > relevant, is grammatical correctness. I showed few weeks ago on this list 
> > that a theory of tenseless Hebrew is absurd, and Hebrew use of tenses is 
> > perfectly consistent. Grammatically, the meaning is "I will be." 
> > 
> > Vadim Cherny 
> > 
> > Response: Well, don't you think that a translation should make sense? 
> Even though I understand your point of grammar, I don't think one can do 
> proper translation without context. 
> > 
> 
> One could twist the grammar only if standard reading is meaningless, not if 
> he doesn't like the meaning. Translating from context means understanding 
> the context, actually - interpreting the context. Thus certain translators 
> slip into exegesis. 
> 
> Vadim Cherny 
> 
>From yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com  Wed Sep 14 05:56:01 2005
Return-Path: <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.207])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212F44C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 05:56:01 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id z3so185768nzf
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:56:00 -0700 
(PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        
h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        
b=blBuuNlnmafl84dZ3xbh6AO7rbuTNOotf8M8ivElmJeOUF23tRbCjv7EXyuFd2bGbMHnQybvSNaPq9L+t/4tt7HBeEOLAHPbnEnSQ/OlKTbN3ySWIzQdG0azLgkJRBBI5za4bXtA6n2Ql59oTwGnVaqcJHXSEmne5OzUqRWls7s=
Received: by 10.36.3.20 with SMTP id 20mr335627nzc;
        Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.57.6 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e6ea6c0005091402561224868a AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:56:00 +0300
From: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <43276A0C.8040301 AT qaya.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20050913194400.HAAX11606.simmts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@duron>
        <e6ea6c00050913153156e5a4c7 AT mail.gmail.com>
        <43276A0C.8040301 AT qaya.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Babylonian pointing
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
Reply-To: yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:56:01 -0000

On 9/14/05, Peter Kirk  wrote:

> The most convincing of a number of reasons why the different pointing
> systems need separate Unicode code points is that each combining=20
> mark is associated with a particular position relative to the base=20
> character, and the system would get very confused if the position of the=
=20
> mark changed with a font change. Also there are texts with both sets of
> pointing, I understand.

There are also many texts with two fonts.  Just because "Rashi" script=20
appears as a script for many commentaries of the Torah and Talmud side
by side with Hebrew script, and in some cases is used as a method of
sorts to highlight a phrase (much like small caps would be used to, say,
denote a keyword in a software language book), so too, there is no
reason for multiple Rashi and Hebrew scripts.  It is one script with two
fonts and both fonts can be used in the very same text, even in the very
same sentence.

I am not sure about confusing the system, but I think it is an attribute of
the font.  That is, the font has to describe for the system how to put=20
together an Alef, a Hataf Patah, and a Tipha, but it changes between
different fonts as to how to handle the combination, because different
fonts have different sizes and different considerations for all this.  So I
really doubt that is a consideration.

What I think leads to the conclusion that they should be separate is
that the vowel marks are really different.  It's not just a different versi=
on
of "patah".  It's a different vowel that overlaps some of the Tiberian
patah and does not overlap others.  So it really is a very distinct
symbol.  And having concluded that, it becomes reasonable to suppose
that at least other vowel markings, but probably also cantillation marks,
(even though the cantillation marks might be considered just a subset
of the Tiberian one) should be considered as a separate group in their=20
entirety.

Yitzhak Sapir