Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Thursday 06 October 2005 11:47, Vadim Cherny wrote:
> > "Great. And how do you know the idea, if you ignore the grammar?"
> > You don't ignore the grammar. You have to understand the grammar of both
> > languages.
>
> Right. So you have to see that le is dative in Hebrew, and ask yourself, if
> English translation is equivalent of dative.

Who told you that le is dative in Hebrew?  They gave you a bum steer.  This 
kind of absolutism is a big part of your problem and the reason you really 
don't know much about Hebrew.  But it's clear that you are also unteachable, 
so that's all I will say on the subject.

> Say, "That Ishmael might live for you!" is a reasonable translation of what
> is properly dative, “consecrated to you”.
> But omitting le in Gen2:7 changes the meaning.

It was already pointed out that this Ishmael reference is irrelevant because 
it's a different expression.

> > "Became to a living soul" is not good English.
> > Become simply does not take a prepositional phrase as its object in
> > English.
> > As for other examples,
> > Exodus 4:3, 7:10, 7:12  Moses' staff became  (le) a serpent.
> > Deuteronomy 26:5 became a (le) great nation
> > Joshua 7:5 the heart of the people melted and became (le) water
> > Judges 1:33 became (le) tributary to them
> > Judges 8:27 it became (le) a snare to Gideon and to his family
> > Ruth 4:13 she became to him (le) a wife
> > 2 Sam 8:2 the Moabites became (le) servants to David
> > Psalm 114:2 Judah became (le) a sanctuary to him
> > Isaiah 63:10 he changed himself to become (le) an enemy to them
>
> Your examples fall into the category of the comparative sense of le.
> 1Kings2:2, “Be strong, and show yourself as a (le) man,” or Exodus4:3,
> “[rod] became a (le) serpent.” Such usage of le is consistent with dative:
> “as a man, as a serpent” (Russian подобно+dative). The connotation is,
> “similar, but not the same”; Solomon, according to David’s estimate, was
> not a man yet, but should behave like one.

Hopelessly pedantic and completely unnecessary, especially for English 
translation.  You clearly know very little about either Hebrew or English, so 
it would be a good idea to stop trying to explain them.

> The man, however, is universally referred to as “living soul”; here
> identification replaces mere similarity. The reading, "The man became as a
> living soul" is possible, but unlikely. Even if the meaning is indeed such,
> the connotation is not becoming a live person (in which case le in the
> sense of "as" would be improper), but turning from "as dead" (from the
> drought) to "as alive" (in Eden), revived.

This is hilarious.  I've been paying bills all day, so I really needed the 
laugh. Thank you!

> > Since you asked how I ignore the grammar, let me ask you, what grammars
> > and lexicons are you using for Hebrew and English?
> > The definition I gave you for le is a standard definition found in
> > Brown-Driver-Briggs.
>
> I rarely feel a need to consult lexicon, and certainly not a grammar, but

This is the other part of your problem.  As I said, unteachable.  Perhaps it 
would be good if we all just stop responding.  I intend to do just that, and 
also to stop reading your posts (except maybe on bill paying day ;-)

- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Maybe I'll trade it for a new hat."