Biblical Hebrew Forum

[gfolbreiii <gfolbreiii AT gmail.com>]

Dave:  You are just no fun to play with at all.  That's a bummer.

i guess you are just too far advance to interact with me on my lower level.

Gerry Folbre

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:06 PM, <dwashbur AT nyx.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 7 Oct 2009 at 15:12, Gerry Folbre wrote:
>
> > dwashbur AT nyx.net wrote:
> > > On 7 Oct 2009 at 12:43, Gerry Folbre wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> Karl wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "You did not make a word for word translation; you just made a
> > >> list of words
> > >>
> > >> and your interpretation of their meanings without making them
> > into
> > >> a
> > >>
> > >> meaningful sentence that we can follow. Further, not all of us
> > agree
> > >> with
> > >>
> > >> your interpretations. It looks as if you have just taken ideas
> > from
> > >> your
> > >>
> > >> class and plugged them into your answer, some of us even
> > question
> > >> what you
> > >>
> > >> were taught in your classes."
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> With all due respect, the BHS Masoretic Hebrew Text of Pr. 5:6 is
> > >> composed precisely as I presented it, and I translated each word
> > and
> > >> bound morpheme precisely according to Gesenius´ Hebrew Grammar,
> > >> Brown,
> > >> Driver & Briggs Heb./Eng. Lexicon of the Old Testament, and The
> > >> Analytical Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon.  If that is not a
> > word-for-word
> > >> translation, I do not know what is.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I would say that's a fair assessment of the situation; you really
> > don't.  What you made is an
> > > interlinear, not a translation.  An actual translation would put
> > the clauses into a form that's
> > > comprehensible in the receptor language, in this case English.
> > Note the rest of Karl's
> > > sentence: "without making them into a meaningful sentence that we
> > can follow."  I concur
> > > with that evaluation, and I am among those who question what you
> > were taught in your
> > > classes.
> > >
> > > Dave Washburn
> > >
> > > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur <http://www.nyx.net/%7Edwashbur>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > Dave:  An "interlinear" is an "interpres translation."  By supplying
> > an
> > "interlinear and/or interpres translation" the Source Text becomes
> > the
> > focal point in stead of the individual's exposition and/or exegesis
> > {critical interpretation}of that text.  Having the BHS Hebrew Text
> > rendered directly into English in an "interlinear" and/or
> > "interpres"
> > fashion enables us to separate our personal inclinations from what
> > the
> > Hebrew author originally composed.  Once our personal inclinations
> > are
> > set aside we then have the opportunity to expound upon the Source
> > Text
> > and together arrive at a consensus regarding  how best to present
> > the
> > Hebrew Text in an English exposition and/or critical
> > interpretation.
>
> I'm sure somebody told you that, but in practice it doesn't work.
>  Unintelligible English
> doesn't do anything for translation or interpretation.  And personal
> inclinations have just as
> much effect on renderings of individual words as the do on anything else,
> so your approach
> is untenable.
>
> > You are among those who question what I was taught in my classes.
> > The
> > article by Sebastian Brock is one small (yet extremely important)
> > example.
> >
> > Regarding Pr. 5:6, the places where the Hebrew presents the second
> > person pronoun prefix, "you", that "you" would have to be referring
> > to
> > the "son" to whom the "father" is speaking.
> >
> > If you disagree on that point, please do so by showing how the
> > Hebrew
> > Source Text indicates your interpretation.
>
> Truthfully, I can't see the point in doing so.  It's clear already that we
> won't get anywhere.
>
> Dave Washburn
>
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur <http://www.nyx.net/%7Edwashbur>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>