Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

@Steve:

> SM: Kelton, I do not follow your logic. You say that because Z`Q can take 
> an 
> indirect object preceded by EL, then the direct object of the hiphil form 
> of 
> Z`Q cannot be caused to do the action, in this case, Crying out for help. 

Response:  That is not quite what I meant.  Let me try to do it this way.

1.The verb Z'Q means to "call out."  
2. HALOT says when it is followed by an accusative it means to "call out to 
someone."
3. This makes sense because when one calls/ addresses, they are 
calling/addressing "someone else".   That is why this particular verb Z'Q is 
normally followed by "EL."  Because EL is used in order to illustrate this.  
i.e. "I called out to my mother"   Likewise here in Zech 6:8, he is being 
addressed/called out too.

In Gen 20:13 you don't wonder someone else, you only call out to someone 
else.  Does that make sense?  Because this verb is addressing someone.

Steve> So you say T`H is not a good example because it does not take an 
indirect > object. Then, how about KRB, draw near? It can take an indirect 
object 
> preceeded by EL. In the hiphil, cause to draw near, the direct object of 
> the 
> hiphil verb is the one that draws near. i.e. Exo 29:4 And you shall cause 
> Aaron and his sons to draw near to the door of the tabernacle .. 
> -Steve Miller, 
> Detroit 

Response: I understand your point, but it is a little different that what I 
was discussing above.  Because KRB is not addressing someone like Z'Q is. By 
the way what part of Detroit do you live? I live in Detroit as well.  Right 
off of 6 mile.
>From farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com  Sun Nov 27 20:24:14 2005
Return-Path: <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mfep7.connect.com.au (fep7.mfe.bur.connect.com.au 
[203.63.86.7])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274624C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:24:14 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (cor11-ppp1865.hay.dsl.connect.net.au
        [61.69.215.87])
        by mfep7.connect.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086B1B042
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:24:09 +1100 
(EST)
Message-ID: <438A6B63.7080906 AT hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:28:51 +1000
From: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
References: <438A6AE5.7050708 AT aapt.net.au>
In-Reply-To: <438A6AE5.7050708 AT aapt.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0547-5, 26/11/2005), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew grammar, (was Zech 6:8)
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:24:14 -0000



David Kummerow wrote:
> Point 3) is where the rubber really hits the road, but I don't really
> see any way of resolving the matter one way or the other as we both
> differ so fundamentally in our views regarding 1), 2), and 3). Because
> we don't have the Masoretes around to ask and we don't have texts
> displaying the arising use of either the clitic involved with wayyiqtol
> on the one hand or the evidence necessary to confirm your divergent
> opinion on the matter on the other hand, I see no way forward. In the
> lack of any agreement regarding points 1), 2), and 3) we will remain
> with our different views because we read the evidence and approach the
> evidence entirely differently.
> 


Note: in my hasty typing when I wrote 1), 2), and 3) above it should 
have been 1), 2), and 4).

David Kummerow.