Re: I Samuel 2:7lhynardJanuary 24 2006, 06:05:15 UTC
This verse is almost identical to 6 in structure. The verbs are all hiphil participals. Because YHWH does not have an article, it is ambiguous as to whether these should be taken predicately or attributively. It is my opinion that the latter is preferable, because the point of the passage seems to be more about God's quality than His actions. Even if one translates them predicately, because the actions described are timeless, they semantically end up describing God's qualities anyhow.
As for odd verbs, there is the rare polel form once and also an odd doubling of the p in ShPL that I cannot explain.
Re: I Samuel 2:7lhynardJanuary 30 2006, 20:03:01 UTC
Correction: I chose to translate the participles attributively with "the One" as an unspecified pronomial antecedent to emphasize the qualitative nature of the participles. I believe that this is the focus of this passage.
I chose not to translate the participles predicately or verbally, because this indicates a narration of sorts, and I do not think that is the focus of this passage.
verses 6 and 7 are not parallel in that there is a narrative form at the end of 6: wa-yyá'al, and then he led upwards.
m'hayyeh, he makes alive, is participle of pi'el and not hiph'il.
the tetragramme cannot have an article because it is a name. if you take the participles attributively, then, I'd ask, what are the predicates of these nominal sentences? you're right, of course, that here is a statement on certain qualities of God. But these very qualities are actions, i.e. a distinction between quality and action is superfluous. on the other hand, i cannot see how these qualities are in any way timeless. that would imply that all of them are exercised simultaneously (which is nonesense).
finally, the pe in mashpeel is not doubled. it is mudgash, i. e. hardened, because of the preceding shwa nah (shwa quiescens).
verses 6 and 7 are not parallel in that there is a narrative form at the end of 6: wa-yyá'al, and then he led upwards. I don't think that line of reasoning applies in poetry.m'hayyeh, he makes alive, is participle of pi'el and not hiph'il. Yes, that is true, but I was referring there to v. 7. In all cases in both verses, though, the sense of the verbals is causative, which is usually (not always) carried by the hiphil forms.the tetragramme cannot have an article because it is a name. right, but it still means that "rule" about whether an adjective or participle is attributive or predicate cannot apply here. It is inherently ambiguous.if you take the participles attributively, then, I'd ask, what are the predicates of these nominal sentences? The participles themselves -- they are predicate adjectives.But these very qualities are actions, i.e. a distinction between quality and action is superfluous. So with all verbals -- but the focus of this passage seems to be on the qualities of God, not a narrative of his actions over a limited time
( ... )
>> the tetragramme cannot have an article because it is a name.
> right, but it still means that "rule" about whether an adjective or participle is attributive or predicate cannot apply here. It is inherently ambiguous.
well, no. as a name, the tetragramme is determinated (is that the right term?) which would imply that related adjectives would have to be determinated, too, e. g. YHWH ha-mmashpeel
as a name, the tetragramme is determinated (is that the right term?) The term is definite, but yes, names tend to be that way in many languages.
You may be right, but I'm not sure if the attributive/predicate rule applies to the semantic definiteness or the presense or absense of the prefix article. I'll have to look into that. You may be right.
If this is the case, however, it would make it impossible for that language to have a predicate adjective whose antecedent was a proper name....
7. The Lord disposesses and makes rich, Makes low and also raises up
8. He raises from dirt the helpless (And) from the ashpit He will lift the poor
To seat (them) with nobles And the throne of glory He will give into their possession
For to the Lord (belong) the pillars of the earth And he sets upon them the world.
------------- This wasn't too hard from a translation point of view, so I tried to maintain the Hebrew word order in an attempt to keep the poetic feel.
Comments 13
1or "is dispossessing"
Reply
As for odd verbs, there is the rare polel form once and also an odd doubling of the p in ShPL that I cannot explain.
Reply
I chose to translate the participles attributively with "the One" as an unspecified pronomial antecedent to emphasize the qualitative nature of the participles. I believe that this is the focus of this passage.
I chose not to translate the participles predicately or verbally, because this indicates a narration of sorts, and I do not think that is the focus of this passage.
(Also see below.)
Reply
m'hayyeh, he makes alive, is participle of pi'el and not hiph'il.
the tetragramme cannot have an article because it is a name. if you take the participles attributively, then, I'd ask, what are the predicates of these nominal sentences? you're right, of course, that here is a statement on certain qualities of God. But these very qualities are actions, i.e. a distinction between quality and action is superfluous. on the other hand, i cannot see how these qualities are in any way timeless. that would imply that all of them are exercised simultaneously (which is nonesense).
finally, the pe in mashpeel is not doubled. it is mudgash, i. e. hardened, because of the preceding shwa nah (shwa quiescens).
hope that helps a little.
best,
mathias
Reply
I don't think that line of reasoning applies in poetry.m'hayyeh, he makes alive, is participle of pi'el and not hiph'il.
Yes, that is true, but I was referring there to v. 7. In all cases in both verses, though, the sense of the verbals is causative, which is usually (not always) carried by the hiphil forms.the tetragramme cannot have an article because it is a name.
right, but it still means that "rule" about whether an adjective or participle is attributive or predicate cannot apply here. It is inherently ambiguous.if you take the participles attributively, then, I'd ask, what are the predicates of these nominal sentences?
The participles themselves -- they are predicate adjectives.But these very qualities are actions, i.e. a distinction between quality and action is superfluous.
So with all verbals -- but the focus of this passage seems to be on the qualities of God, not a narrative of his actions over a limited time ( ... )
Reply
> right, but it still means that "rule" about whether an adjective or participle is attributive or predicate cannot apply here. It is inherently ambiguous.
well, no. as a name, the tetragramme is determinated (is that the right term?) which would imply that related adjectives would have to be determinated, too, e. g. YHWH ha-mmashpeel
best,
mathias
Reply
The term is definite, but yes, names tend to be that way in many languages.
You may be right, but I'm not sure if the attributive/predicate rule applies to the semantic definiteness or the presense or absense of the prefix article. I'll have to look into that. You may be right.
If this is the case, however, it would make it impossible for that language to have a predicate adjective whose antecedent was a proper name....
Reply
Makes low and also raises up
8. He raises from dirt the helpless
(And) from the ashpit He will lift the poor
To seat (them) with nobles
And the throne of glory He will give into their possession
For to the Lord (belong) the pillars of the earth
And he sets upon them the world.
-------------
This wasn't too hard from a translation point of view, so I tried to maintain the Hebrew word order in an attempt to keep the poetic feel.
Reply
Leave a comment