HI David,
I thankfully accept your caution.
In fairness to Revell, I poorly stated his definition of immediacy/distance as a parameter of usage. It is not only a deference or politeness distinction per se. Immediacy reflects a category of usage in which social status, emotional intensity, and personal concern come into play (see _The Designation of the Individual_ 3.4, 26.1, 28.5.1-2).
In addition his analysis of the 'ani/'anoki contrast does not sit alone. According to Revell, it is part of a widely utilized and self-consistent parameter of usage, immediacy/distance.
Of course, we should probably view with suspicion any "self-consistent" linguistic system in the Hebrew Bible, but again, in fairness to Revell, his corpus of study is limited to Sam-Kings, if I remember correctly.
I am not out to defend Revell. Only to be fair. On the other hand, I do like coming to the Hebrew Bible with a "friendliness" like his, in which one strives to find consistency in the corpus we have rather than trying to reconstruct the origin of BH.
shalom,
Bryan
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.