To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu, 596547 AT ican.net
Subject: Re[2]: 1 Kgs 1:40
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:52 -0500 (EST)
Dear Bryan,
I'm sorry, but your reasoning is circular. On what grounds do you say
that the verb $MX is intransitive? Because of its usage in BH, i.e. in
the Biblical texts (plus, perhaps, Sirach and a few broken pots). So
when you find an example in which $MX apparently takes a direct object
you have to find another explanation. Better argue as follows:
Hypothesis: $MX is intransitive. Test against data: $MX appears to
take a direct object in 1 Kings 1:40. Conclusion: either the
hypothesis is incorrect (and $MX, like YR', can be both transitive and
intransitive); or there is some other explanation of the data; or
both!
And I am afraid I am not convinced by your alternative explanations.
Why can Hebrew not have transitive verbs with the meaning
"be-full-of", "take-pleasure-in" etc? Different languages vary in such
matters. You might similarly argue that "wait-for" could not be a
transitive verb - until you remember that we have an English
transitive verb with that meaning, "await".