Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<pporta AT oham.net>]

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Brak 
  To: pporta AT oham.net 
  Cc: b-hebrew 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 10:55 AM
  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Befuddled by NGD


  Still a bit foggy, but not as much as I originally was though - so thanks 
so far!

  I can understand the idea of something being in front of you, you realize 
it, and by explaining it you cause them to realize it. But still something 
seems to be missing. For example: why use this word to express "telling" 
instead of )MR
  ___________

  Because "amar" is a quite different thing than "higid". 
  In 'amar' there is the sense of 'utter', 'say words'. While in 'higid' we 
have the much deeper meaning of 'explain', 'give details', 'tell', 'make 
every attempt to cause other/s understand what one is saying'...

  One says 'It is raining' and nothing else.  ------- this is "amar"
   And another explains how is rain originated, that there are many types of 
rain, that rain comes ultimately from sea waters through the heath of sun 
which causes it to become clouds...... and finally it falls on the earth in 
the "rain"... That rain is necessary but can be very hamful as well... --- 
this is 'higid'.

  Semantically these two verbs ('amar' and 'higid') are not the same thing 
though they have something in common: to achieve both one must usually use  
his mouth.


  And then how do you go from "in front" to "opposite".
  Before I thought that the main idea was opposite, and if something is on 
the opposite side of a table as you are then they are in front of you - so to 
me that made sense. But just because something is in front of you doesn't 
mean that its on the opposite side of the table from you - it could be on the 
same side.

  Yes. But then, Brak, we must realize that  it is "beside (me, us...)" and 
not 'opposite'. 'Opposite' and 'in front of' are, in some respects, 
synonimous. 
  Pere Porta

  Thanks for the help so far, but I'm still not quite getting it.



  B"H 
  John Steven

  "If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you 
behave."
  -Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.



  pporta AT oham.net wrote: 
  Yes. But my question is how are these related?
  How does the concept of "opposite" relate to the concept of "to tell"?

  _____

  Let us take for preposition NGD the meaning "in front of".
  If you have something in front of you (say a car, a dog or a rose), usually 
you are seeing it as it really is (though we do not see the intimate nature 
of things), so that its shape, colour, size and so on are clear for you. 
  So a thing that is in front of someone is conspicuous for him (the seer).

  Now, how do we do to make something to be conspicuous, to be clear (to 
others)?  Just by explaining, declaring, telling others about it...

  Is this explanation enough?  Do you feel some step, some ring of the chain 
is lacking here?

  Pere



  pporta AT oham.net wrote: 
I have a question.

Sometimes NGD is translated as "against" or "opposite" or "in front", to
which I can see the relationship between.
But other times it's translated as "tell" or "declare".

I don't see the common link between the idea of "opposite" and "telling".
Can someone please help me understand the relationship between these 
ideas.
    
_________

As a preposition, NGD means "against", "opposite", "in front of"...
But as a verb, NGD means "to be conspicuous". Then the Hiph'il form of verb 
NGD, which in its basic form is HGYD (look at Mi 6:8), means "to cause to be 
conspicuous" ie "to declare", "to explain", "to tell".

Pere 

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

  
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


>From kwrandolph AT gmail.com  Wed Jul 25 12:21:35 2007
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com 
[209.85.132.242])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3840F4C01B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:21:35 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c18so48462anc
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:21:35 -0700 
(PDT)
Received: by 10.100.189.17 with SMTP id m17mr477176anf.1185380494771;
        Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.110.3 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <acd782170707250921w2755a65fp812ecc79988ef65e AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:21:34 -0700
From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
In-Reply-To: <46A647EE.4020109 AT earthlink.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <46A647EE.4020109 AT earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Job 22:17
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, 25 Jul 2007 16:21:35 -0000

Harold:

I considered this verse, but didn't list it in my message of July 10.

On 7/24/07, Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net> wrote:
> This is for Steve Miller.
>
> Dear Steve,
>
> In Job 22:17 the translations are rendering LMW as "to us":
>
> Job 22:17 They said to God, 'Leave us alone,'
> and 'What can the Almighty do to us?'
>
This is how I read it. as it fits the parallelism found in Biblical
Hebrew speech.

> But HCSB has a textual note saying that it is following the Syriac and
> LXX. It says that the Hebrew MT reads "him." This seems a distributive
> singular for the initially plural third person participial verb. The
> suffix on MMNW in the middle of the verse is related. LMW does not yield
> first person suffixes, so MMNW has a third singular suffix, and LMW is
> in agreement with it.
>
MMNW is also first person plural, which fits the context as if this
were a direct quote of the people speaking. And LMW is in agreement
with it.

Other examples of MMNW being first person plural include Genesis 3:22,
26:16 and I expect that a study of the word would find many more.

> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard

I didn't list this verse as I can see how modern people, using modern
forms of speech and understanding, could argue that LMW is third
person plural, contradicting Biblical Hebrew usages. I was and remain
not willing to go into an argument about one verse, especially when
there are other, less ambiguous verses that show the same usage. But
this is one case where I agree with the translations.

Karl W. Randolph.