On 30/09/2003 11:53, Karl Randolph wrote:--
>Peter:
>
>The problem I have with the traditional translation is that I don’t
understand it.
>
>Oh I understand the lexemes and the sentence structure, but the idea doesn’t
make sense. Furthermore, the parallelism gives the actor, then his way in an
inanimate milieu for the first three, whereas what is his way in a virgin? ...
>
I would have thought any man would know that (even though I admitted I don't!). But certain things are just not spelled out explicitly in a polite text. Probably in each of the sets of ascending clauses in Proverbs 30, the focus is on the last one and the preceding three are compared with it. There is nothing strange about comparing a woman with the sky, the sea, and a rock - especially as no doubt the snake finds its way into a hole in the rock.
>... But “into the unknown” fits the parallelism, makes linguistic, logical
and psychological sense, and I understand it. ;-)
> >
Unfortunately that's does not imply that it is correct. You need much better evidence than that.
>Karl W. Randolph.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.