Jason Hare wrote:kwrandolph wrote:It’s a stand alone noun in Exodus 2:12, 14, Deuteronomy 23:8, 2 Samuel 23:21, Ezra 9:1. There’s no reason to take it as other than a noun here.
Because an adjective can be substantivized when it stands alone, it should be read as a substantive when it accompanies a noun? Is that what you're saying?
Let’s turn that around. Just because a noun can be used as an adjective, does that make all nouns into adjectives? Does a noun stop being a noun when used as a adjective? And is it being used as an adjective in your example? Do you make your claim just to defend a model from “experts”?
Jason Hare wrote:kwrandolph wrote:Go back and reread that sentence. עבדי is a masculine plural in construct. It doesn’t have a possessive suffix which it needs to have to be an example of what you claim. The ה on קטנים is to specify the small ones, not the great ones. אדני is irrelevant to your argument.
The structure is the same whether it has a pronominal suffix or is a noun in
smichut. I thought that might be beyond you. I shouldn't have used it (even though it's obviously relevant).
In linguistics, the simple reading is the preferred reading unless there’s some very good reason to reject the simple reading. In this example, I indicate the simple reading as supported by logic, grammar, syntax, word meanings, which you reject for … what?
Jason Hare wrote:kwrandolph wrote:Apparently the writer of 1 Chronicles didn’t know Hebrew when he wrote 21:16.
These are not noun phrases. These are like saying "keep the city clean," in which "clean" is actually a predicate adjective. Again, it would be considerate to
QUOTE THE VERSES that you reference rather than making me leave the forum to go search for the verse.
I thought we were dealing with adults here, who are perfectly capable of looking things up for themselves without handholding. I usually look up the verses anyways, because I want to see the contexts.
Jason Hare wrote:וַיִּשָּׂ֨א דָוִ֜יד אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּ֞רְא אֶת־מַלְאַ֤ךְ יְהוָה֙ עֹמֵ֗ד בֵּ֤ין הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ וּבֵ֣ין הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְחַרְבּ֤וֹ שְׁלוּפָה֙ בְּיָד֔וֹ נְטוּיָ֖ה עַל־יְרֽוּשָׁלִָ֑ם וַיִּפֹּ֨ל דָּוִ֧יד וְהַזְּקֵנִ֛ים מְכֻסִּ֥ים בַּשַּׂקִּ֖ים עַל־פְּנֵיהֶֽם׃
"[David saw] his [the angel's] sword pulled out with his hand outstretched over Jerusalem...."
According to the simple reading of this text, according to word meanings, grammar, and syntax, this is a mistranslation. The phrase I point to in Hebrew reads “his sword drawn out in his outstretched hand” “outstretched” being the adjective. The LXX goes a step further, saying that “drawn out” is also an adjective.
Jason Hare wrote:kwrandolph wrote:What’s מפלתם if not a feminine participle, feminine because it’s describing an abstract falling, not a physical one?
No,
מַפֶּ֫לֶת is a noun, not a participle. It takes pronominal suffixes as
מַפַּלְתּוֹ and
מַפַּלְתָּם and means a "fall" or "collapse" generally or something that has fallen. Where di dyou get that it was a participle?
There are two words here, מפלה which takes a final ת when in construct or when it has a pronominal suffix, meaning something that is fallen, such as ruins and/or remains. The other word is מפלת which is a gerund referring to the action of falling. It’s in the form of a feminine participle. Gerunds are nouns, and like all nouns can take pronominal suffixes.
Participles are nouns, and take the same suffixes as other nouns. An example is from Psalm 121:3 אל-ינום שמרך
What I see in you is akin to medieval “science”. The medieval practice was to look at what the “experts” (most famously Aristotle) said and defend that saying even when it contradicted observation. The way to study nature was to study the “experts”. Secondly it as to adopt a model taught by the “experts” and defend it, even against observation.
Theology had the same practice: the way to know theology was to read the “experts”. Luther changed that practice to the way to know theology is to go to the source, the Bible itself. Scientists looked at what Luther did, and a light went on in their head—the way to study nature, is to go to the source, nature itself.
In linguistics, the medieval method is to study the “experts”, the scientific way is to study the language itself while questioning the “experts”. I was taught the scientific way when I studied at the university.
Earlier I asked, “To give a concrete example—using your modern grammar, or the grammar taught by Weingreen and Gesenius, can you explain the verbal usages in Proverbs 31:10–31, where there is a mixture of Qatal and Yiqtol verbs in a context of continuous, present action, in a way applicable to all of Tanakh? Don’t give the cop-out that this is poetry, because poetry, especially poetry intended to teach, doesn’t accomplish its goal unless it uses the same grammar as prose.”
You take the poetry cop-out. That’s because the grammar you were taught is defective. My understanding of grammar not only can account for Proverbs 31:10–31, but it can also account for narrative and instruction.
Karl W. Randolph.