Biblical Hebrew Forum

[davedonnelly1 <davedonnelly1 AT juno.com>]

On Tue Jan 26 09:14:06 EST 2010, I had written:

>>>
I own "The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament" 
[ e.g. NIVIHEOT ]  in a 4 volume set.
The NIVIHEOT uses a BHS text, which like Codex L., has 6 different
variants of YHWH.
Each one of these 6 variants of YHWH, where ever they occur, are
translated as "Yahweh"!
By what authority does the NIVIHEOT translate YHWH as "Yahweh"?  
>>>

 Dave Donnelly
_________________________________________________________________________
_____ 

Since I first wrote the above text, I have done a little searching in the
Introduction of my NIVIHEOT.
On pages xx and xxi of the Introduction of the NIVIHEOT, under the
heading “Word Choice”, the editor [ or maybe the editors ] wrote:
snip/snip
“The vocabulary of the interlinear text, then, is taken from the NIV in
most cases.” 
snip/snip 
The editor [ or maybe the editors ] then explained why they used “Yahweh”
in place of LORD in the interlinear text of the NIVIHEOT. 
“A fourth type of exception involves the name of God. The proper name of
God  ( YHWH )  is translated ‘LORD’ in the NIV and most other English
versions. The NIVIHEOT consistently renders this name as ‘Yahweh’. This
is the spelling and pronunciation generally acknowledged by Bible
scholars. Further, according to Scripture, this is God’s special name,
and has no direct connection with the idea of lordship. Thus the use of
the name Yahweh is a major--and, I think, meaningful--exception to the
NIV.” 
FWIW
Dave Donnelly
____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=s9f7zSAnxzeP-2T5P5rhJwAAJ1BVGyITH_OGb159rldJgo3SAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=
>From dwashbur AT nyx.net  Mon Feb  1 00:18:41 2010
Return-Path: <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id BDD844C013; Mon,  1 Feb 2010 00:18:41 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled
        version=3.2.3
Received: from qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net
        (qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.40])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031914C013
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon,  1 Feb 2010 00:18:39 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from omta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.92])
        by qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast
        id cUYk1d0041zF43QA4VJgjm; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:18:40 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.120] ([98.247.54.184])
        by omta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast
        id cVKe1d0023yUNmy8kVKfEQ; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:19:39 +0000
From: dwashbur AT nyx.net
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:18:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4B65F38A.17657.345BEF41 AT dwashbur.nyx.net>
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <4f3a6171001311251m30900888g79815d316a316c90 AT mail.gmail.com>
References: <a0624080fc788a68c62da AT 192.168.1.34>,
        <4B6578E7.9267.327CDABD AT dwashbur.nyx.net>,
        <4f3a6171001311251m30900888g79815d316a316c90 AT mail.gmail.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] BH verbal system
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dwashbur AT nyx.net
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: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:18:41 -0000



On 31 Jan 2010 at 20:51, James Christian wrote:

> 
> Apologies. I (as always) typed the response quickly and didn't check
> for spelling mistakes and 
> missing words. The first sentence should read: I think the problem
> here is that you are not 
> imagining English as a dead language with no informants. 
> Reading it with the 'not' should make more sense. What I would like
> you to do is to imagine 
> English is a dead language and analyse the forms as they would
> appear in a typical corpus. 

I see no good reason to do so.  For one thing, English is an amalgam that has 
undergone 
massive changes in grammar, vocabulary, written representation, and just 
about anything 
else you can name over the centuries, mostly due to influence from other 
languages and 
import/export with other cultures and linguistic groups.  The only way to 
fully understand 
English grammar, especially as regards forms of the type we're discussing, is 
diachronically.  
An example: I was reading a book on some aspect or other of linguistics 
several years ago 
in which the author was discussing "-berry" words.  Blueberry, blackberry, 
that sort of thing.  
S/he was at a loss to explain the "straw" portion of "strawberry."  
Apparently, this author had 
no idea that "strawberry" is a phonetic corruption of an original 
"strayberry," so named 
because of the way the vines wander all over the place.  Lack of diachronic 
awareness 
frequently leads to erroneous conclusions.

This 
> is essentially what we are doing with Hebrew. 

"Essentially"?  It's exactly what we're doing, because that is the actual 
situation with 
Hebrew.  But it's not a particularly desirable situation.  We're stuck with 
it, that's all.

When doing this with
> English we see that the 
> neither tense nor aspect is grammaticalised in the form. 

We see nothing of the kind.  Staying with your examples, the present-tense 
form "go" in its 
non-infinitive use clearly grammaticalizes tense.  And actually, speaking 
diachronically, the 
past form "went" stems from "wend," not from  "go."  The past tense of "go" 
vanished and 
was taken over by that of "wend."  So we have to take that into account, as 
well.  

In fact, in
> order to analyse any useful 
> grammaticalisations you have to call the most distinct functions of
> the form homonyms for that 
> grammaticalisation to work. 

Hardly.  Once again, check it out diachronically and you'll see there's a 
solid basis for my 
conclusion about homonymous forms.  The situation is much more difficult with 
Hebrew 
because we don't have the massive linguistic change over a firmly datable 
corpus the way 
we have for English.

This is interesting from the point of
> view of a pyscholinguist. When 
> the two functions differ in tense you view the functions as so
> different you are prepared to 
> analyse them as homonyms. When the functions differ only in aspect
> you don't go to that length. 
> Could this indicate that tense is more important to us
> psycholinguistically speaking than aspect? 

I have no idea what psycholinguistics  has to do with it.  English is a 
tensed language, it's 
that simple.  Aspect is most generally denoted by presence (or absence) of 
auxiliary verbs: 
"He went" vs. "He was going," for example.  And these examples show that we 
do have 
tense encoded, because neither of those clauses can be used grammatically as 
a present 
or future.

You have not made your case.  In fact, your examples actually do harm to it.


Dave Washburn

http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur