Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Steve and Herman:

What I have said is that each lexical term has a 
range of meaning, not just a single point. For 
some terms, that range is large, for others their 
range of meaning is rather small.

For both the Hebrew "W" and the English "that", 
each has a range of meaning of which only a 
small corner of each intersects, and then only 
for a specific use of both. For both terms, they 
intersect at the meaning "as a consequence", 
"that would lead us to" or along that line. A 
simple "and" does not carry that inflection, 
but sometimes the "W" prefix does. Similarly 
"that" sometimes carries that meaning.

I agree that for most uses of "that" that a "W" 
prefix is not indicated, similarly for most uses 
of "W" prefix "that" is the wrong translation, 
but for a small portion of uses, ....

This is one of the things that I find so 
interesting about lexicography, namely how 
different languages treat what seem like 
similar terms differently. It gives an insight 
into the thinking processes behind the uses 
of language.

Karl W. Randolph.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
> 
> Thanks Herman! Thanks for clarifying. I believe that. How would you
> translate Isa 53:2 & Ps 25:11 as literally as possible, but still make
> sense?
> -Steve
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
> >
> > There are no "waw-prefixes that need to be translated as 'that'".
> > There are only syntactical structures that, if we attempt to translate
> > them,
> > may result in employing a word 'that'. However, there is no relation
> > between
> > this word "that" and the word "w" in Hebrew.
> > Language is not built up of words, but of sentences.
> >
> > שלום
> > Herman,
> > Rotterdam

-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/