Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

Check out the NET notes, it has some good stuff.

48 sn One difficulty here is that it is the west wind that brings rain to 
Israel (e.g., 1 Kgs 18:41–44). C. H. Toy suggests that the expression is 
general, referring to a northwest wind – unless it is an error (Proverbs 
[ICC], 468). J. P. M. van der Ploeg suggests that the saying originated 
outside the land, perhaps in Egypt ("Prov 25:23, " VT 3 [1953]: 189-92). But 
this would imply it was current in a place where it made no sense. R. N. 
Whybray suggests that the solution lies with the verb "brings forth" 
(lleAxT., t®kholel); he suggests redefining it to mean "repels, holds back" 
(cf. KJV "driveth away"). Thus, the point would be that the north wind holds 
back the rain just as an angry look holds back slander (Proverbs [CBC], 149). 
But the support for this definition is not convincing. Seeing this as a 
general reference to northerly winds is the preferred solution.
49 tn Heb "a tongue of secret" or "a hidden tongue," referring to someone who 
goes around whispering about people behind their backs (cf. KJV, NAB, NASB, 
NRSV "a backbiting tongue").
50 tn The phrase "brings forth" does not appear in Hebrew in this line but is 
implied by the parallelism with the previous line; it is supplied here in the 
translation for clarity.
51 sn The verse implies a comparison between the two parts to make the point 
that certain things automatically bring certain results. Gossiping words will 
infuriate people as easily as the northerly winds bring the cold rain. 

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Kim Chua <s_kim_chua AT yahoo.com> 

> I have checked the English translation for 
> Proverbs 25:23 and found the following: 
> 
> In English (can't type in Hebrew yet on this new 
> computer): The North Wind (verb) the rain and 
> an angry face, the tongue (verb). 
> 
> One translation gives the verbs as 'drives away'; 
> while some others give them as 'brings forth'. 
> What is the literal translation? 
> 
> We don't have the North Wind here so I can't 
> tell if it brings forth the rain or drives it away. 
> I suppose both translations are right depending 
> on where the speaker is. Those in the south 
> gets the rain. But what about the tongue and 
> the angry face? 
> 
> Kim Chua 
> Hebrew 101student 
> Singapore 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------- 
> Don't pick lemons. 
> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From furuli AT online.no  Wed Mar  7 09:52:44 2007
Return-Path: <furuli AT online.no>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail49.e.nsc.no (mail49.e.nsc.no [193.213.115.49])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B19F4C010
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed,  7 Mar 2007 09:52:44 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from ttttt (ti200710a080-15825.bb.online.no [85.164.189.209])
        by mail49.nsc.no (8.13.8/8.13.5) with SMTP id l27Eqe8c004196
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:52:42 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <007301c760c8$41c5db80$1a46fea9@ttttt>
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <mailman.6.1173200407.30322.b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>     
<45EDFDFB.50401 AT hotmail.com>    <003301c7608e$8ae626b0$1a46fea9@ttttt>
        <45EE8BB7.3090000 AT qaya.org> <003101c760a9$0cf3eb00$1a46fea9@ttttt>
        <45EEB5B4.90702 AT qaya.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 14:52:24 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
        reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <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, 07 Mar 2007 14:52:44 -0000

Dear Peter,

Perhaps I express myself in a less than adequate way, so I try again with 
some English examples.

If we have clauses like 1a,b) and the verb is not specified, we know nothing 
about the time of the event or what is made visible; we only have the 
lexical meaning and the Aktionsart. This indicates that neither the 
infinitive "to walk" and the participle "walking" are tenses; they have no 
intrinsic time reference.

1a) John WALK* from his office to his home.

1a) John WALKING* from his office to his home.


In 2a,b,c) the time reference of the participles is explicit, namely past, 
present and future. The time references is not caused by the participles but 
by the auxiliaries "was," "is," and "will be". A time reference can also be 
seen without the auxiliaries, as we see in 2d. In example 3a) the time 
reference is past, and the reason why we know this is that "walked" is 
grammaticalised past tense; the past tense is an intrinsic part of the verb 
itself and is independent of the context. This is what all linguists know 
and ordinary persons understand (but they do not describe it by the help of 
grammatical terminology): The past reference of some English verbs is 
sometimes connected with the verb form, in other cases it is dependent on 
the context. As linguists we must be ready to show why we say that "walked" 
has an intrinsic past tense while that is not the case with "walking".


2a) John was walking from his office to his home.

2b) John is walking from his office to his home.

2c) John will be walking from his office to his home.

2d) While walking from his office to his home, John saw a fox.

3a) John walked from his office to his office to his home,

In Hebrew all the finite and infinite verb forms can have past reference. 
Thus, if we say that one of them represents past tense (has an intrinsic 
uncancellable past reference) we should be able to show by which criteria we 
conclude that.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
To: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Verbal Aspect (was Tenses - Deut 6:4)


> On 07/03/2007 11:09, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>> Dear Peter,
>>
>> Here you completely miss the mark!  The point is as follows: All 
>> linguists know, and ordinary people know that some verbs can refer to the 
>> past because the verb forms themselves have an intrinsic past tense, and 
>> other verbs can in one context refer to the past and in other contexts to 
>> the future. This is absolutely not theory-dependent, since this is a fact 
>> that no one would dispute. ...
>
> Rolf, I'm sorry, but I don't know this, neither as a linguist nor as an 
> ordinary person, and I do dispute it. As an ordinary person, I have no 
> conscious understanding of any distinctions of this sort, I simply use and 
> understand verbs and other parts of language. As a linguist, I am aware 
> that in some languages in many circumstances there are clear distinctions 
> of this kind, but I am also aware of examples where there is no clear 
> distinction, such as where a verb form which ordinarily has a past meaning 
> (in a loose sense of the word) can also be used in a non-past way.
>
> Your appeal to "All linguists know, and ordinary people know..." is a 
> double logical fallacy. The first, "All linguists know...", is an appeal 
> to authority fallacy, see 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority. The second, "ordinary 
> people know..." and repeated in "this is a fact that no one would dispute" 
> (even if these statements were true, which I don't accept), is an 
> "Argumentum ad populum" fallacy, see 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum. You have to prove 
> things like this, not assume them. If your theoretical model assumes them, 
> then it is an inadequate model.
>
> -- 
> Peter Kirk
> E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
> Blog:    http://www.qaya.org/blog/
> Website: http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
>