Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

isaac,

thanks for your clarification. your point is well taken.

i understand and accept your example in this spirit. technically, however 
(correct me if i'm wrong)
this example is etymological (i.e. whether  "tbaaru" here means "ignite" or 
"sustain") rather than
grammatical, since there is only one imperative form in BH which therefore 
conveys no information 
additional to the verb it carries. if so, can you provide another example 
where grammar (preferably 
tense) alone,  and not etymology,  has caused a similar  controversy?

nir cohen

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 22:16:20 -0500, Isaac Fried wrote
> You are right, but I hope you fully appreciate the delicacy of the 
> background issue. For many people it is theologically imperative to 
> understand what the Hebrew bible is saying. But the fact that the language 
> of the bible is often non grammatical gets in the way. Are certain sayings 
> of the prophets about the past, the present, the immediate future, or the 
> distant future? Context, which is often too meagre, and a factual 
> background, which is often uncertain, may not be helpful. No end 
> theological controversies arise from these, often nebulous, textual 
> passages, and their variously possible understandings. Recall the well 
> known example of Exodus 35:3, the crucial edict: LO T-BAAR-U E$ B-KOL 
> MO-$B-OT-EY-KEM B-YOM HA-$ABAT. Does T-BAAR-U mean start a fire, as is the 
> rabbinical understanding, or does it mean leave a fire burning, as is the 
> karaite הקראים understanding (I think they don't consider fluorescent light 
> as "fire")?   
> 
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
> 
>   
> 
> On Feb 7, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:
> [in particular, grammar cannot attribute any fixed, absolute, immutable, 
> context-free dynamical value to a single word, the way you do.]