Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

concerning an EXPLICIT, unambiguous example where speech content
could not be involved but the action of the verb was moving an explicit
something/one that was not the 'content of communication':

>> "ONE example. Please.
>
> I gave you seven,

I obviously missed them or their unambiguity.
I had even showed you what an explicit, unambiguous example would look like.
(Since I couldn't find one in BH --and I claim that such doesn't exist--
I showed you Daniel 7.10 where
everyone can see that the subject/object was 'river of fire' with a verb from
the root n.g.d. That is what 'explicit/unambiguous' looks like. And of
course, I
think that BA and BH are different. I am not citing the BA to import its
meaning into the meaning of BH, I cite the BA to show that it is DIFFERENT
from BH and that it is explicit and UNAMBIGUOUS in its difference.)

So please point out the/an explicit UNAMBIGUOUS example where
speech content was not involved but the action of the verb was moving
something/someoneone that was not the 'content of communication'.

Oh, and a word about honesty.
>> It would be nice to hear the integrity of a statement like,
>> "I admit that I do not have one explicit example to show that
>> le-haggid can have a non-communication object. But I
>> want to believe that it can anyway."
>
>No, I cannot make that statement because that would be dishonest.

You may want to rethink your answer.
You did not specify an 'explicit' example, that is, an example
where the text specifies the object that was 'moved/transferred' and
that it was
not a 'telling/communication'. you did not point out how
or why ANY of your previous examples could be considered explicit, unambiguous
examples where le-haggid could not refer to a 'telling, communicating' as its
object*.
So your undocumented answer "I gave you seven" comes across evasive and
time wasting, at best. I can rephrase the questions and points to be
airtight if
you want cumbersome 'linguistic legalese', but that should be unnecessary in a
good-faith conversation. (*transitive verbs have two 'arguments', a
"doer" and a
"patient/object". We are talking about the 'patient', whether encoded as the
object of a hif`il le-haggid, or as the 'subject' of a passive hof`al.
We want to
see an explicit 'patient' that is not the 'content of communication'.)

You have presented ZERO.

The rest of your answers can wait to be cleaned up.

הגד לך

-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life