Meaning of proverbs 23: 4

[kwrandolph]

Dear Karl:

Karl said : Does the fact that an activity takes place in the mind negate the fact that it is an activity? If I add a column of numbers in my mind without using a calculator or pen and paper, does the fact that it happened solely in my mind make it no longer the activity of adding?

If you do the above as you suggested you are "thinking" and therfore 'adding' is in the stative mode. Adding in the mind requires a thought process, therefore it is stative. If however you say: " I am adding numbers up on paper and using a calculator" then 'adding' in this context is an outward observable action and is therefore dynamic, and the verb 'using' is known as an auxillary verb since it helps to describe the actions of the subject who is in a process of adding. In this situation, only 'context' can determine when the word 'adding' is being used dynamically and when it is being used in its stative mode.

Again, you look at the form, in this case whether or not there is an outward action, whereas I look at the function, what is being accomplished. In philosophy, your way of thinking is called “Greek thought” because it was derived from the ancient Greek philosophers, while mine “Hebrew thought” because it is found in the Hebrew Tanakh. There’s a write up on the differences that is too long to copy here at http://www.amazon.com/review/R2TU1ZFIBS ... 2ORSD5SSAG .

Karl said : If we impose what we think should be there, we can result with a meaning completely at odds with what the author intended.

Firstly Karl I agree with everything that you said regard scientific method and the danger of misinterpreting and deceiving ourselves, I agree with everything, but I would like to add something, an extra ingredient if you like to compliment, not to oppose what you said, but to compliment it, my perspective then is a direct answer to the above quote: I believe, that unlike chemistry (which I have studied to a point and respect the need for self discipline etc), the scientific method can only work with static models.

When we analyze what can be repeatedly observed, only present day processes can be reliably repeatedly observed. Individual objects can be destroyed, lost, or otherwise not available for repeated observation. The methodology is ahistorical, because the events of history cannot be reobserved.

Scripture is fluid, may I demonstrate:
Hosea 11:1 from the Writer's point of view was quite clear and unmistakeable
Matthew 2:15 now offers a seemingly absurd but nevertheless true interpretation.

These two are at odds, yet they compliment, the writer did not intend anything else other than Israel, and Matthew did not intend anything else other than the Messiah.

I also "Observe" that Scripture is fluid, it can not be subjected to a scientific perspective alone.

Let’s break that down:

Linguistics, the language used in Tanakh can be scientifically studied.

The acceptance of its message is done by something other than scientific analysis. One reason is that so much of it is history, with history being outside the realm of science.

As for Proverbs 23:4, you have given me an insight as to the thought patterns that may be behind the Masoretes writing חדל as an imperative. But I, looking at it from a grammatical and linguistic analysis, conclude that the Masoretes were wrong, that it should be a participle. Yours is a philosophical argument, mine a linguistic one.

Now which one is correct?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Galena]

Karl said : Again, you look at the form,.......

Nooooo....I looked at the grammar and I answered your query, from a grammatical point of view. I explained static, polynesian hebrew greek, static is static in some form of unique expression.

Karl said : your way of thinking is called “Greek thought”

and this makes me in error? or a disadvantage? I would go so far to say that every human being on this planet who reads biblical hebrew has a disadvantage in that whether Greek, Polynesian or hebrew struggles to identify the precise cultural mentality and emotional attachment and living scenario that would make these scriptures mirror their precise form and function for todays audience.

Karl said : There’s a write up on the differences ......

I understand this very well....the greek says God is Love, while the hebrew says God loves them...... an object is described not in relation to itself but in relation to its purpose, I read this many years ago, the visual versus the conceptual....the word 'faith' has no meaning, it's a concept, but 'to bring up, support, nourish a child, is the visual behind faith. But regardless of all this, grammar is grammar and I explained the grammar, where's the problem?

Karl asked earlier : Karl said : The acceptance of its message is done by something other than scientific analysis. One reason is that so much of it is history, with history being outside the realm of science.

So you had to admit then that scientific approaches alone, are inadequate for dealing with scripture - the point I needed to make.

Karl said : Let’s break that down: Linguistics, the language used in Tanakh can be scientifically studied.

Never denied that - it's the uneven balance you seem to worship that is wrong. Linguistics of course has cultural rules, but again these can only be observed loosely within a scientific medium. One can not set the thus-far discovered linguistic rules of scripture in concrete. Some of those rules will defy your expectations and you will then have to formulate another rule to account for it, until eventually you have so many rules that they begin to overlap and contradict and complex, that's the 'achilles heel' of scientific analysis - they need, nay, they feed off categories and nicely labelled drawers.

Karl said : But I, looking at it from a grammatical and linguistic analysis, conclude that the Masoretes were wrong, that it should be a participle. Yours is a philosophical argument, mine a linguistic one.

The linguistics/grammar of the scripture in those days were only a guide, as they are even in modern languages, to help the writer conform to certain expectations of his cultural audience. What we observe (read) and thereby understand requires the capacity for creative thought and loosely binding cultural sensitivities to grammar as the skill of the writer utilizes his medium of words to convey his message that bypasses the intellect in order to soak the senses.

I do not disagree in your approach at all, really I do not, I do not disagree at all. I just feel that you have only half the story and I perceive a view from you which is weighted too far in a singular direction. I am not arguing with your main points, just trying to re-balance the approach, that's all.


As a final thought: There are two steps needed to become fluent in any language as I am sure you also have experienced; The first is the translation, this requires a knowledge of grammar and linguistics, but that brings you only half way, at the moment it is still in your head, in your mind, in your intellect. The next step defines 'fluency' - when it moves from your mind into your heart. It is at this point where you finally understand the medium through which you communicate the visuals of the language. Words are a language of the heart, not of the mind. Words are not the language itself, they are simply the carriers of ideas and emotions and visual imagery so that the listener receives in like manner, the image that you see without loss of quality. When it moves from the mind into the heart, then you understand. No science in the whole universe can quantify this miracle.



Kind regards
chris

[kwrandolph]

Karl said : Again, you look at the form,.......

Nooooo....I looked at the grammar and I answered your query, from a grammatical point of view. I explained static, polynesian hebrew greek, static is static in some form of unique expression.

What you defined as “static” depended on the form, whether or not an action was done using visible, outward tools, or the same action done mentally without outward tools. Even though it is an action, that it was done mentally, you call it “static”.

A functional analysis asks “Is this an action?” and calls it “static” only where no action is done.

Karl said : your way of thinking is called “Greek thought”

and this makes me in error? or a disadvantage?

I’m not the person to whom this question should be asked. I’ve already signaled my bias. What do others say? What does the article that I referenced say?

I would go so far to say that every human being on this planet who reads biblical hebrew has a disadvantage in that whether Greek, Polynesian or hebrew struggles to identify the precise cultural mentality and emotional attachment and living scenario that would make these scriptures mirror their precise form and function for todays audience.

That’s two or three steps down the road. The question before us, and the disagreement between us, is what is the precise structure of this sentence?

Karl said : There’s a write up on the differences ......

I understand this very well....the greek says God is Love, while the hebrew says God loves them...... an object is described not in relation to itself but in relation to its purpose, I read this many years ago, the visual versus the conceptual....the word 'faith' has no meaning, it's a concept, but 'to bring up, support, nourish a child, is the visual behind faith. But regardless of all this, grammar is grammar and I explained the grammar, where's the problem?

Did you read the article? From your answer, it appears that you didn’t.

Karl asked earlier : Karl said : The acceptance of its message is done by something other than scientific analysis. One reason is that so much of it is history, with history being outside the realm of science.

So you had to admit then that scientific approaches alone, are inadequate for dealing with scripture - the point I needed to make.

I don’t understand the point that you are getting at.

Karl said : Let’s break that down: Linguistics, the language used in Tanakh can be scientifically studied.

Never denied that - it's the uneven balance you seem to worship that is wrong.

“uneven balance”??? What uneven balance? Worship?????????

Linguistics of course has cultural rules, …

What?? What cultural rules?

Linguistics is the study of the mechanics of the language. The mechanics of a language can be used in different ways to express different cultural and philosophic ideas.

An example was given in that article to which I gave its link is that the same linguistic mechanics of the Greek language was used by the ancient Greek philosophers to express one set of beliefs, while the same linguistic rules were used by the writers of the New Testament to present a very different culture and philosophic idea. Because the linguistic rules were the same, we can recognize thereby the different ideas presented.

… but again these can only be observed loosely within a scientific medium. One can not set the thus-far discovered linguistic rules of scripture in concrete. Some of those rules will defy your expectations and you will then have to formulate another rule to account for it, until eventually you have so many rules that they begin to overlap and contradict and complex, that's the 'achilles heel' of scientific analysis - they need, nay, they feed off categories and nicely labelled drawers.

That’s not the science I was taught.

Karl said : But I, looking at it from a grammatical and linguistic analysis, conclude that the Masoretes were wrong, that it should be a participle. Yours is a philosophical argument, mine a linguistic one.

The linguistics/grammar of the scripture in those days were only a guide, as they are even in modern languages, to help the writer conform to certain expectations of his cultural audience. What we observe (read) and thereby understand requires the capacity for creative thought and loosely binding cultural sensitivities to grammar as the skill of the writer utilizes his medium of words to convey his message that bypasses the intellect in order to soak the senses.

I do not disagree in your approach at all, really I do not, I do not disagree at all. I just feel that you have only half the story and I perceive a view from you which is weighted too far in a singular direction. I am not arguing with your main points, just trying to re-balance the approach, that's all.

I was taught that the proper way to analyze a document, or in theology the terminology is “to exegete a Bible passage”, is first to get down the meaning of a passage by the linguistic rules of the language in which it is written, only afterwards to infer its cultural or philosophical import, or in theology to “understand its doctrine”. However, I constantly see it violated, especially by theologians, though by others as well. The most common is to read into what is said, or written, what the reader thinks should be there or what the reader wants to be there, but what was not there by the intent of the author. Often what is omitted by the author is omitted purposefully. In theology that’s called “eisegesis”.

As a final thought: There are two steps needed to become fluent in any language as I am sure you also have experienced; The first is the translation, this requires a knowledge of grammar and linguistics, but that brings you only half way, at the moment it is still in your head, in your mind, in your intellect. The next step defines 'fluency' - when it moves from your mind into your heart. It is at this point where you finally understand the medium through which you communicate the visuals of the language. Words are a language of the heart, not of the mind. Words are not the language itself, they are simply the carriers of ideas and emotions and visual imagery so that the listener receives in like manner, the image that you see without loss of quality. When it moves from the mind into the heart, then you understand. No science in the whole universe can quantify this miracle.

I have become fluent in more than one language, yet I have never experienced this “miracle”. Rather what I experienced was that the more I learned of a second language, the less I needed to translate from my mother tongue into that language as I spoke. It is a gradual process.

Kind regards
chris

Karl W. Randolph.

[Galena]

Karl said : Do stative verbs have direct objects? Can you give an example of such in English?

Karl you never cease to amaze me...I really thought to myself, ok he asked a direct question, to this I can answer directly with universally accepted grammatical definitions and I gave examples, wow, I actually provided evidence that can be observed and verified, what could go wrong, I thought?

Karl said : Does the fact that an activity takes place in the mind negate the fact that it is an activity? If I add a column of numbers in my mind without using a calculator or pen and paper, does the fact that it happened solely in my mind make it no longer the activity of adding?

And then you surprised me with this tricky issue, ah, I sipped my coffee and took a minute to debate with myself, Karl has been thinking, is this a trick question, another 2 coffees and some careful typing, better not mess this up I thought to myself.....but guess what............careful reasoning just did not seem to quite do it eh?

Ah now I understand - think not thou in form but apply thyself to function abandon ye oh thou sinner thine Greek heritage


and now I see a mistake here...

Karl said : Again, you look at the form,.......

Nooooo....I looked at the grammar and I answered your query, from a grammatical point of view. I explained static, polynesian hebrew greek, static is static in some form of unique expression.

I made another boo-boo, typed 'static' instead of 'stative', whoops, but then Karl if you had used some of that Greek reasoning you might have spotted that this was a slip-up? After all the context demanded it.

Galena wrote:
Karl said : Let’s break that down: Linguistics, the language used in Tanakh can be scientifically studied.


Never denied that - it's the uneven balance you seem to worship that is wrong.


Karl asked : “uneven balance”??? What uneven balance? Worship?????????

Within the context of what I said, the worship of the scientific method to the exclusion of all other faculties, including those Greek twits somewhere in the aegean.

Galena wrote:
Linguistics of course has cultural rules, …


Karl asked : What?? What cultural rules?

The peculiarities and subtleties of communicating humour, sarcasm and feelings within a discourse or poetic medium is the area of semantics, but these semantics are controlled by cultural upbringing and environment. Noam Chomsky, fantastic fellow, do you like him? Very intelligent gentleman, anyway, good old Noam said:
"""In accounting for the astonishing rapidity with which children assimilate complicated and subtle grammatical rules because we are all born with an innate capacity for language..... that this makes children able to generalize the grammatical principles of their native tongue from a small set of 'generative rules' that are hardwired into how they think. He goes on to say that languages change alter and develop when the parameters of these rules become reset within a culture.""""" These are the cultural rules I mean, if they are not what you understood then I apologise.

And finally

Karl said : The question before us, and the disagreement between us, is what is the precise structure of this sentence?

Nope, that was not the question that I was answering to you, I answered Norman's questions and put forward the grammatical rule necessary. The question I was answering you concerned what you asked me, over the grammatical meaning and use of the static, whoops sorry, stative. I refuse to go into a discussion with you over the proverb, it's dangerous, and even if I said something right it would be wrong somewhere in that syllabic structure. In fact I do my best on many occasions to tell you where I agree with you, so as to minimise any possible misunderstandings and prevent you from going up a cobbled alley-way that always results in a dead end for me but a victory for you.

As an absolute final final word, yes I did read your response to the amazon book. And the funny thing is, what you say is precisely the sort of evaluation that I had read many years ago, though yours put it more succinctly. I liked what you paraphrased, I absolutely agree with the whole concept, I always have done, that is precisely why I gave a brief example by picking on the word: Faith, that was a blink of the eye signal to help you se that i understood your view. Within the context of what I understand from some of the points you have made may I add that I despise some of the teachings of many of the church fathers, I have mostly contempt for the twisting of scripture so as to deny the Jewish people their dignity, their glory. I have no time for the christianisation of scriptures in as far as they are vomited from the pulpits of theological institutionalisation and the subtle anti-jewish sentiment that folds God's words like a wet garment - sinking truth into obscurity.

Kind regards
chris

[normansimonr]

Thank your for all your interesting ideas. It's now much clearer to me that there is a lot sutble things that make BH interesting. Have a nice day.

[Isaac Fried]

Chris,

I would not repeat such platitudes as "we are all born with an innate capacity for language." We are all born with a divine, ultimate, nonpareil, intelligence.

I would not repeat such silly electro-mechanical similes as "hardwired" capacity.

Children are quick learners of (their factual) language because they merely parrot it --- no "linguistic-grammatical analysis." Very young children are also unguarded, unabashed (וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ Gen. 2:25) and are not hampered in their speech by shame, fear of embarrassment, and other emotional impediments to free flow found in adults.

Those who know Hebrew have no use for "generative grammar."

Language can not be learned from only "linguistic-grammatical analysis." We understand what other people say because we understand "life", even without "grammar".

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Michael W Abernathy]

Karl,
I’ve been struggling with your discussion of this text for some time. You may have a better grasp of the language than I do, but I do find your arguments difficult to follow. You started by saying, “Context, form and grammar all say that this is a participle.” Later, you refer to linguistic analysis. I don’t know if you actually did a linguistic analysis of this passage but if you did, you never showed the analysis in your discussion.
Now my problem is basically this: your understanding of Hebrew is a bit eccentric. By itself, I’m not sure that would be a problem but you sometimes fail to fully explain how you came to your conclusions. I’m not saying it’s wrong—but it doesn’t follow standard text books on the subject. So when you say, “Context, form and grammar all say that this is a participle,” I have to ask “what does he see?”
Context? I assume you mean the broad context since you didn’t mention any form of contextual analysis.
Form? חדל without vowel points can be either a participle or imperative. I don’t see how the form dictates which of the two fits.
Grammar? I’m not sure if you were trying to explain your grammatical reasoning when you said, “This is a phrase starting with the prefixed mem indicating away from. If חדל were an imperative, that would be a command to abandon insight.” If that is the case, I would point out that מן is also used to express the cause or means of a situation. See for example Ezekiel 28:18, 2 Sam 3:37. From what I can see, it is just as reasonable to interpret this as an imperative meaning “because of your understanding, stop.”

If you have a more complete explanation, I will be more than glad to consider it.
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy

[Jemoh66]

Children are quick learners of (their factual) language because they merely parrot it

This has been shown to be false. Children can create language in the absence of parental language. This means there is a "hard wired" language facility in the child, and a universal grammar that allows children to construct an inner consistent language apart from the language they might pick up from their parents. It means that what is happening as a child DOES hear mom and dad talk, that deep seated language aptitude (or that universal grammar) allows him to recognize patterns of speech. In fact the child is so adept at perceiving grammar early on that it accounts for things like mouses, deers, fishes, and other plurals. He has to be corrected and be taught the oddity of mice, deer, and fish.

[Isaac Fried]

Jonathan,

I agree with you that at as early as age 2, children start to recognize and apply speech patterns ("grammar"). I would even accept that, left alone, children, under the natural ("evolutionary") urge to communicated with others, would reinvent language, as they would reinvent the wheel, and eventually fly to the moon.

How would they do it? Easily. They would start with curt utterances for the fundamental concepts and precepts of reality, for instance גע GA, 'extend', עם AM, 'massive, על AL, 'lofty'.

Then, upon seeing the lofty beast with the extended neck and massive hump they would exclaim גע-עם-על GA-AM-AL, later congealed into גמל GAMAL, 'camel'.

Next they would fall, quite naturally, upon the idea of the personal pronouns, or universal temporary names, and becoming more sophisticated and linguistically astute by the day, they would soon graduate into coining such words as גמילה = גמ-היא-ל-היא GM-IY-L-AH, 'weaning, withdrawal', and תגמוּל = אתה-גמ-הוּא-ל TA-GM-U-L, 'reward'.

Later on the Indo-Europeans would come and mess up all this natural beauty.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Galena]

Dear Isaac,

Later on the Indo-Europeans would come and mess up all this natural beauty.

Yep just wanted to pick up on this and remind you that it is not our fault it is God's! Remember Babel?