Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Isaac,

You are in an academic institution, so you have access to the works I 
mentioned. Pointing you to Greenberg (and the others) is therefore not 
worthless, because that is where the arguement for the verbal plurality 
function of the Piel is put forth. I don't want to do anything more than 
suggest that, and to have to do anything more than that would be wasting 
my time as I don't think you're willing to openly discuss this.

As for where you failed to address some of my concerns before with your 
theory, here's a sampling of posts:

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-November/034627.html

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-November/034622.html

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-December/034737.html

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2007-November/034632.html

Regards,
David Kummerow.



> George,
>
> I have gone over the Hebrew bible many times over since childhood and 
> have never encountered an instance where piel can be construed as 
> implying an "intensive" or repetitive sense. If David has examples to 
> the contrary I will be glad to consider them. The argument that 
> "Greenberg claims so" is otherwise worthless.
> He says "There are no infixed personal pronouns -- I've already 
> demonstrated that". Did he demonstrate this? can he demonstrate this? Of 
> course not.
> I tend to agree with you that I should not argue with him any farther.
>
> Isaac Fried
>
> On Feb 10, 2009, at 12:35 AM, George Athas wrote:
>
> > Isaac,
> >
> > You still have not actually addressed David's questions. All you have 
> > done here is re-state your position. It seems to me that David's 
> > right, and you are either unwilling or unable to address the issues.
> >
> > Is there anything new to say here?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > GEORGE ATHAS
> > Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> > www.moore.edu.au