Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: K Randolph
To: Arnaud Fournet
Cc: JimStinehart AT aol.com ; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] H-XT-Y at II Samuel 11: 3




***
> In that example you are trying to interpret a similar formula according to 
> the regular synchronic syntax.
> There may be a flaw in that process. But I'm not competent enough in the 
> language to say if you are right or not.
> This is more a theoretical objection.
> I noticed "KN with its **implied** “to be” ": so the syntax is indeed odd!?
> Arnaud
***

No, that is a common use of that word. The context indicates whether that 
implicit “to be” be made explicit or not. Standard procedure in the 
language.
***
Ok so *implied* is not about Hebrew supposedly "lacking" something. It's 
more about translation into a language where to be should appear or 
"universal grammar" or the like.
This is what I understand.
A.
***


> What would be a regular sentence with the same meaning and the same words?
> A.
***


That’s just it, I made two regular sentences out of what is otherwise 
twisted grammar that really doesn’t mean anything as pointed.
***
If you have some time, I'd be interested that you develop a bit more the 
grammatical issue(s) here.

Arnaud Fournet
***