B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

I can see your point, Chris and Isaac, and have come to understand it better. Actually, I read that very verse in the Septuagint and the Vulgate and they also translated it as an imperative. And on second thought in this case the masoretic points don't seem to obscure the verse, if one takes "understanding" as denoting a wrong purpose or "wrong understanding."

One of the sources of my confusion was how to interpret the chatef patach and the qamets, because to my novice's eyes it looked like a qatal. But if it is an imperative it actually fits the verse. And, funny thing, if it is a participle, it also fits the context. At the end of the day, the advice is simply that one shouldn't obssess over becoming a millionaire.

Galena wrote:Bloody hell Karl - After humbling and accepting my mistake I decided to clarify (because I was afraid to make another mistake) to clarify from YOUR point of view, I was trying to be polite by attempting to work from your seating position so that I might then be able to reason very carefully, that was my idea. Talk about crushing under foot someone who has fallen.

This is a discussion, not a mortal combat. What’s this about “crushing under foot”? That doesn’t make sense.

Galena wrote:

Galena wrote:
My only argument at this moment (leaving reasoning aside) is the absence of a vav prefixed to this participle.

Karl said : Here you’re trying to make something fit your model, instead of analyzing what’s there

I was asking a bloody question! Not fitting a model!

Then why didn’t you write it as a question? I’m not smart enough to recognize questions that don’t end with a “?”.

Galena wrote:

If you were so confused in the past, why didn’t you ask? Instead of starting an argument?

A classic case of entrapment, when one starts to respond emotionally this is what happens - so my fault yes absolutely my fault, I am making mistakes now, yes, yes, I know. But and However my first two posts to this topic were well thought out and without grammatical errors. My last posts are obviously becoming full of mistakes because my responses go from carefully thought out to emotional as you begin to dissect and punch. You often do not answer the question you simply reply with a hidden smack in the mouth having focused like a heat seeking missile on a particular error of thought, accusations and judgements follow as the posts continue based on just a few words I might write that steer from your ideas on how I should put forth a case :

Please, please don’t get emotional about this. It isn’t worth it.

Unless someone is deliberately lying about what you said (which I try to avoid, but misunderstandings happen) assume that mistakes have been made and try to work around them. The reason I quote you is to try to avoid misrepresenting what you said.

Another thing, take a moment and reread your responses. See if there’s anything that is unclear, can be misunderstood, makes assumptions that may not be shared, and reread and edit. I often reread and edit my responses on this list several times to try to avoid misunderstandings, and even typos, before posting.

… (don’t need to repeat a philosophical exchange) …

Galena wrote:Your reply has just blown me away, I am in total shock, stupified!, it's mind-boggling, but this is an example of how difficult it is becoming to reason anything out with you, and I have learned, painfully, that I am becoming fearful of discussing anything at all with you. The only thing I can say is "All Praise to the middle ages, may they live forever, and may their dots light up the heavens"

Can you imagine my discomfort as a science trained modernist going into a medieval / post-modernist philosophy department? It’s clear that the medieval mindset was unable to develop science, and the post-modern mindset is unable to preserve science.

Seeing as the study of linguistics and Biblical Hebrew language are scientific studies, this increasing post-modernism threatens to undermine the very activity we’re trying to do on this list.

Karl W. Randolph.

normansimonr wrote: One of the sources of my confusion was how to interpret the chatef patach and the qamets, because to my novice's eyes it looked like a qatal. But if it is an imperative it actually fits the verse. And, funny thing, if it is a participle, it also fits the context. At the end of the day, the advice is simply that one shouldn't obssess over becoming a millionaire.

Just a quickie Norman, forgive me if you already know this, If it was a qal active imperative with the nuance of "Stop immediately", "pack it in" then it would be pointed thus: חֲדֹל, but it is to be understood as a stative.

Kind regards
chris

Galena wrote:

Norman asked : אַל־תִּיגַע לְֽהַעֲשִׁיר מִֽבִּינָתְךָ חֲדָֽל׃

How could I understand it? I could make a translation like: 'Don't toil to get rich, from your understanding it desists.' But it doesn't make any sense. I mean, I'm translating the last word as a Qatal, but this approach has the problem of not having a clear subject (which, apparently, also happens in verse 5, thus giving me the idea that in both verses the subject is just implied.) Or can it be treated as an imperative, as many translations seem to do?

A stative is a verb that expresses a mood or state rather than doing something, a state of the mind or of the emotions instead of an action.

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

I thought stative verbs reflect back onto the subject, that they don’t have an action on a direct object. Correct me if I’m mistaken, especially by giving examples.

Galena wrote: This Verb that some think could be a participle has been pointed by the masoretes to represent precisely this, as a peh gutteral conjugation this verb חֲדָֽל is a stative verb but also an imperative. I searched even-shoshan and found only one other case like this in Jeremiah 40:4 at the end of this verse, but this is in pause due to an atnah underneath and so not an imperative.

Here you go by the form, I look at the function. But even the forms (Masoretic points) you cite are questionable. You accept them as divinely inspired, I consider them, but only as the work of fallible humans that could be mistaken. Because I have found mistakes in them, I stopped looking at them except during discussions.

Galena wrote: So basically it is telling us to have a certain attitude within the context of these verse, not to actually suddenly stop thinking or using our understanding, but adopt a certain attitude in this regard.

I agree with this commentary on the verse, I just disagree with the understanding of how Biblical Hebrew expressed this idea.

Galena wrote:Kind regards
chris

Karl W. Randolph.

Dear Karl,

Karl asked : Then why didn’t you write it as a question? I’m not smart enough to recognize questions that don’t end with a “?”.

This is undoubtedly my fault because I wrote it as I was thinking it in my head and I was writing it in conversational mode with you as opposed to a reply/response framed within a formal layout , I was thinking in a conversational mode where the intonation would be placed upon the right word and the hearer would perceive this in a questioning context rather than as a formulated disagreement. Words lack syllabic stress and non-verbal gestures - sorry. My responsibility. My fault.

Karl wrote : Can you imagine my discomfort as a science trained modernist going into a medieval / post-modernist philosophy department?

No, to be honest, I can't.

Karl also said : It’s clear that the medieval mindset was unable to develop science, and the post-modern mindset is unable to preserve science.

Well on this point I am in danger of being hunted down again because there is so much I could say to this, so to be working from the 'Karl' perspective I need you to define what you mean by science? Are you referring to an attitude of empirical observations that are supported by undeniable repetitions of consistency? Or are you referring to the practise of investigation and the experimentation and the results? And do you see any advantage in applying scientific thought and discipline to the study of a language?

Kindest regards
chris

Ah cross-posted, just read your last. so

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

I thought stative verbs reflect back onto the subject, that they don’t have an action on a direct object. Correct me if I’m mistaken, especially by giving examples.

In English such as: "I believe that he is there" Believe is being expressed as a continuous state of mind, an emotion, a mental attitude. However, "I believe in him" is this stative or is this dynamically expressed? It has an object, and it reflects back onto the subject. I think that this is stative because the very nature of the word demands a mental action rather than an action such as hunt, drive, walk, look.

Another one: I agree with you, this is stative with an object. It also reflect back onto the subject.

How about " I am lonely" No object, is a verb, but it expresses an emotion, a state of mind.

In the case of our favourite hebrew word, if Hebrew, and I stress IF hebrew operates this way then to be understood as a stative can still mean that it takes a direct object or indirect object, but this depends on whether hebrew operates in this manner grammatically speaking and at this moment I simply do not know enough grammar to understand such details. If, in the case of our friend חדל, by "reflecting back onto the subject" you are asking where the subject is (and please forgive me if I am presuming this and you may see something else as the subject I know) I see the subject as the בין noun (quoting the root Karl, understanding that it is a noun since I was misunderstood before).

Galena wrote:

Karl also said : It’s clear that the medieval mindset was unable to develop science, and the post-modern mindset is unable to preserve science.

Well on this point I am in danger of being hunted down again because there is so much I could say to this, so to be working from the 'Karl' perspective I need you to define what you mean by science?

The definition that I use is one that I found in all textbooks that give a definition for science. Not all textbooks give a definition of science. I looked these up when I was in college, post-modern writers may have changed that definition. They defined it as a process:

• Make observations.
• Repeat observations. Observations that can’t be repeated can’t be used by science.
• Look for patterns (scientists call this “making hypothesis”)
• Test patterns by making repeatable observations, setting up situations that could possibly falsify perceived patterns. Falsified ones are rejected or modified.
• Patterns (hypothesis) that pass tests can be called theories.
• Continue testing.

Galena wrote:… And do you see any advantage in applying scientific thought and discipline to the study of a language?

Much in every way. Number one, observation tells us what actually is there, not what we think should be there. Observations not only of individual words, but also of grammatical structures. idioms and other things that help us accurately understand what the speaker or writer intends. Knowing the observed patterns can help us recognize when someone misspeaks or makes a typo.

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

Galena wrote:Kindest regards
chris

Karl W. Randolph.

Galena wrote:

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

I thought stative verbs reflect back onto the subject, that they don’t have an action on a direct object. Correct me if I’m mistaken, especially by giving examples.

In English such as: "I believe that he is there" Believe is being expressed as a continuous state of mind, an emotion, a mental attitude. However, "I believe in him" is this stative or is this dynamically expressed? It has an object, and it reflects back onto the subject. I think that this is stative because the very nature of the word demands a mental action rather than an action such as hunt, drive, walk, look.

There are things that are recognized as mental activities, not just mental states. Belief is one such activity.

Galena wrote:Another one: I agree with you, this is stative with an object. It also reflect back onto the subject.

To agree is another activity.

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?

Galena wrote:How about " I am lonely" No object, is a verb, but it expresses an emotion, a state of mind.

But not an activity.

Galena wrote:(sorry for not quoting you directly here) Do stative verbs act the same in Biblical Hebrew?

I see the very definition of “stative” as applying to all languages, as it is not language specific. And so, yes, I expect it to act the same as in English.

Karl W. Randolph.

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.

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. 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.

Hi, I've been looking up the qal imperative paradigm for stative verbs (see this, for instance: http://templetonhonorscollege.com/wp-co ... Putnam.pdf) but they don't include the chatef patach & qamets pattern, but a sheva & cholem pattern instead. This book (page 5) says that the sheva may change to a chatef patach: http://templetonhonorscollege.com/wp-co ... Putnam.pdf However, the qamets remains obscure to me, or maybe it appeared because chadal is a I-guttural? (again, assuming that the masoretes knew what they were doing in this specific verse.)

Now, I'm starting to wonder if Davidson (who classified this as an imperative) just figured it out from the context or if there is indeed a paradigm for this kind of verbs.

normansimonr wrote:Hi, I've been looking up the qal imperative paradigm for stative verbs (see this, for instance: http://templetonhonorscollege.com/wp-co ... Putnam.pdf) but they don't include the chatef patach & qamets pattern, but a sheva & cholem pattern instead. This book (page 5) says that the sheva may change to a chatef patach: http://templetonhonorscollege.com/wp-co ... Putnam.pdf However, the qamets remains obscure to me, or maybe it appeared because chadal is a I-guttural? (again, assuming that the masoretes knew what they were doing in this specific verse.)

Now, I'm starting to wonder if Davidson (who classified this as an imperative) just figured it out from the context or if there is indeed a paradigm for this kind of verbs.

The qamatz is there simply because the verb is in pause, the syllable is often lengthened in pronounciation when it is in the last syllable of a sentence structure, but to be honest I also used to get hung up over these things, believe me they will destroy the joy of learning, in reality, unless you are training to be a synagogue speaker or a singer I would not even bother to observe such details, in normal speaking these difference are in-consequential. However we sometimes need these distinctions in the beginning in order to grasp the foundations of biblical hebrew grammar. For me personally I see such intricate details as an annoyance, but I also have to draw a fine balance between recognising the need for them from a grammatical learning point of view and the reality of everyday speech/reading. As an amateur learner I need these helps as guides to translate and to interpret, but as a realist they would never be distinguished in speech. I mean even in todays songs if you listen say to a sentence where the singer sings : " I go to the park" for example, if this is the last sentence of a verse in her song, she will sing : " I go to the Paaaaaa..ark" but if it is in the middle of a verse you will here : " I go to the Park....." because it needs to be hurried along for the rythm and continue on to the next line. So is it with what you are seeing here in hebrew. Annoying I find, but that's the hebrew way.

Biblical hebrew reference grammar by Christo van der Merwe and company appears silent on this issue, very surprised;
Kelly burden and crawford give the paradigm as I described;
Gesenius also gives the same paradigm as I described.

Trust me , it is as I described. A First gutteral paradigm - imperative as a stative. The only way this could be wrong is if the paradigm has changed since 1994.
Kind regards
chris