Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] H-XT-Y at II Samuel 11: 3

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>
  • To: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] H-XT-Y at II Samuel 11: 3
  • Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:02:13 +0200


----- 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
***





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page