Genesis 1:2 Word by word translation from the Hebrew
nde_...@my-deja.com
WeHaAretz And the earth
Haytah became (*)
Tohu formless
WaBohu and void
WeChoshech and darkness
Al- [was] on
Pinee the face of
Tihom [the] deep
WeRuach And [the] spirit
Elohim of God
Mirachepheth hovered(**)
Al- on
Pinee the face of
HaMayim the waters
* This verb Hayah is one point of controversy
in this verse. Some have argued that it indicates
a gap between 1:1 and the seven days following,
some feel this is unjustified. One thing is clear
is that "became" is certainly a valid translation
here. (It is given such in an NIV footnote.) If
not, then some explanation is required for its
presence, since normally the verb "to be" would
be omitted in such a statement.
** The exact meaing of this word is hard to determine.
It is only used three times in the Bible, here, Dt 32:11
and Jer 23:9. However, only the first two are in the Piel
form, which, in Hebrew, is a major determinant of
meaning.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( See http://www.enteract.com/~bible for details about this group. )))
Helmut Richter
"Claire Petersky" <cpet...@earthlink.net> writes:
>A word-by-word translation again, would be really, really helpful.
Please, read today's contribution by Matthew Johnson in the thread
"translation bible" in this very newsgroup. He explains quite well why a
word-by-word translation is of limited use when it comes to translating a
sentence, let alone a longer passage of text.
Helmut Richter
Helmut Richter
nde_...@my-deja.com provides the requested word-by-word translation. It
is perfectly in order. When I now comment on it, then not in order to
correct him, but only to show how much information other than the
vocabulary is important for the translation, i.e. how little a
word-by-word translation really says. I'll pick out only a few words as
examples.
>WeHaAretz And the earth
we- : the prefix <we-> means "and" but one has to take its position into
account. Between nouns it is simply "and": <shamayim wa-arets> is "heaven
and earth" (Ps.121:2). Preceding a verb it can change the aspect:
<u-sh'avtem mayim> is not "and you drew water" but more of "you shall draw
water" (Is.12:3). Here, it is at the beginning of a sentence but not at
the verb; quite often then the best translation is "but": <we-ata> is not
"and now" but "but now" (Is.44:1).
arets: means "earth" or "land". That it is the same word as in verse 1 is
obvious, but is it also the same word as in verse 10? It is. If you
translate one with "earth" and the other with "land", your translation is
no longer word-by-word.
>Haytah became (*)
>* This verb Hayah is one point of controversy
>in this verse. Some have argued that it indicates
>a gap between 1:1 and the seven days following,
>some feel this is unjustified. One thing is clear
>is that "became" is certainly a valid translation
>here. (It is given such in an NIV footnote.) If
>not, then some explanation is required for its
>presence, since normally the verb "to be" would
>be omitted in such a statement.
I am among those who "feel this is unjustified", and the reason why I
think so is again far beyond the vocabulary alone. <hayah> can fairly
unambiguously mean "become" in some contexts (in the Nif'al binyan; or
when followed by the preposition <le-> "to" as in Gen.2:7). Moreover,
there are many contexts where there is no difference in meaning between
"be" and "become", e.g. Gen.19:26 where "and after that she was a pillar
of salt" would not mean anything different from "and she became a pillar
of salt" (which is better English style); in such cases the aspect is the
continuation of the narrative (hence the "after that" in my first clumsy
translation). All these cases do not apply in Gen.1:2: no Nif'al, no
preposition <le->, no narrative aspect. I have yet to see any example
where a translation renders <hayah> as "become" other than in these cases.
This does not answer the question how to translate the sentence. As the
previous poster points out,
>some explanation is required for its presence, since normally the verb
>"to be" would be omitted in such a statement.
Hence, we have several unusual features in this sentence: it begins with
the subject rather than the verb, the subject carries a <we->, and the
word <hayah> is present. Should we not compare this sentence with other
sentences that show this rather infrequent construction? The next one is
quite close: <we-ha-nachash hayah arum ...> (Gen.3:1) "and/but the serpent
was/became cunning". No translator puts "become" here, and all introduce
the sentence with "but" (or with a "now" which means "but"). Other
occurrences of such a sentence construction (Gen.29:17 "but Rachel was
..."; Ex.3:1 "now Moses was ...") point into the same direction. This is
why I find "but the earth was ..." the most natural choice for Gen.1:2.
>WeRuach And [the] spirit
ruach: can also mean "wind" or "storm", see for instance "the Lord was not
in the wind" (1Kg.19:11). "spirit" is already an interpretation. Eccl.1:17
is a text where some translators use "spirit" and others use "wind".
So much for a few example how little a translation of the words may mean.
Claire Petersky
A few months ago I asked for help with the Hebrew of the first verse of
Genesis. Everyone who replied gave me something to think about (even when I
disagreed with him/her!) Since that time I've gotten myself some basic
references and learned quite a bit. I'm now ready for the second verse,
which is (please forgive my transliteration if it is incorrect):
Veha'arets hayetah tohu vavohu vechoshech al-peney tehom veruach Elohim
merachefet al-peney hamayim.
A word-by-word translation again, would be really, really helpful. I have
the standard translation of
The earth was without form and empty, with darkness on the face of the
depths, but God's spirit moved on the water's surface.
already.
At this rate (a line or two every month or two) how long will it take me to
get through the entire Bible? Don't tell me, or I'll be too discouraged!
Eventually I'll skip around, but starting at the beginning is not such a bad
thing.
Thanks to everyone who replied before, and is even thinking of replying
again.
mejo...@my-deja.com
In article <8pp11h$1gdm$1...@news.enteract.com>,
Helmut....@lrz-muenchen.de wrote:
>
>
> nde_...@my-deja.com provides the requested word-by-word
translation. It
> is perfectly in order. When I now comment on it, then not in order to
> correct him, but only to show how much information other than the
> vocabulary is important for the translation, i.e. how little a
> word-by-word translation really says.
[snip]
Thank you, Helmut, for an excellent, thorough analysis of the
shortcomings of 'word-for-word' translation of this passage. The only
thing I feel the need to add is that the aspects of the verbs in this
passage are dictated by this peculiar construct, the 'waw-consecutive'.
Only Hebrew (and a few other Semitic languages) have this construct.
There is no 'word-for-word' translation that can convey it accurately,
unless you are willing to encumber the sentence with many adverbs of
time that are NOT in the Hebrew text.
Such are the tradeoffs a translator must make.
So what is a 'waw-consecutive'? It is a sentence construct for
describing a sequence of events. If the sequence of events is in the
past, the first verb in the sequence is Perfect, as is the case here
with the verb in Gen 1:1, "BaRa'". Then all the other verbs in the
sequence are in the Imperfect, as is the case with all the verbs
included in the 'word-for-word' translation given in the previous post.
So the implication for this passage is that all the verbs in Gen 1:1
through Gen 1:4 are sequential events.
We could represent this by insisting on using 'and then' instead
of 'and'. But this would sound hideous.
--
Matthew Johnson
Ex Oriente Lux
Visit http://www.decani.yunet.com to see how
your tax dollars support the persecution of Christians
and the destruction of Christian Churches!
Visit http://www.decani.yunet.com/default1.html for sound theology.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
nde_...@my-deja.com
In article <8pp11h$1gdm$1...@news.enteract.com>,
Helmut....@lrz-muenchen.de wrote:
> show how much information other than the
> vocabulary is important for the translation, i.e. how little a
> word-by-word translation really says. I'll pick out only a few words
> as examples.
Thanks for your comments Helmut. I agree with you to a certain
extent, context is important in translation, however, a word
by word generally communicates most of the meaning, the rest
being derivable from reading the English context. There are some
exceptions. However, the problem with a so called "dynamic
translation" is that it relies on the translators understanding
not only the language, but the meaning of the text. Consequently
they are far more liable to doctrinal and denominational bias.
> >WeHaAretz And the earth
>
> we- : the prefix <we-> means "and" but one has to take its position
into
> account. Between nouns it is simply "and": <shamayim wa-arets> is
"heaven
> and earth" (Ps.121:2).
You are of course correct. This prefix essentailly means "conjunction"
and little more. It is also worthy of note that conjunctions are far
more common in Beblical Hebrew. This means that Hebrew sentences are
typically very long, because rather than using punctuation, it uses
conjunctions. This is certainly a problem for translators, however,
it rarely much changes the meaning of the text. However, the lesson
to learn is that one should rarely read too much into a conjunction
in the Old Testament.
> Preceding a verb it can change the aspect:
Of course here, HaAretz (the earth) is a noun, and not a verb, so
this peculiar rule of grammar does not apply.
Although I am not, by any means, qualified to argue the point, I
would encourage you to consider what Robert Young has to say on
this particular aspect of Hebrew grammar. Robert Young LLD (author
of Young's Concordance, and Young's Literal Translation) postulates
in an extensive preamble to his Literal translation, that this
whole waw consecutive rule is bogus. That is, it doesn't exist at
all, it is merely a misunderstanding of Hebrew verb structure.
FWIW, he points out that such a rule does not occur in any other
Semitic language (including Rabinical Hebrew), and that, even
with it, it leads to lots of extremely difficult to translate
passages. I'm not qualified to defend his position, neither am
I even qualified to judge if it has any validity, however, Robert
Young certainly has great credentials, and that must carry some
weight. I'd merely suggest you read what he had to say, and judge for
yourself.
> >Haytah became (*)
>
> >* This verb Hayah is one point of controversy
> >in this verse. Some have argued that it indicates
> >a gap between 1:1 and the seven days following,
> >some feel this is unjustified. One thing is clear
> >is that "became" is certainly a valid translation
> >here. (It is given such in an NIV footnote.) If
> >not, then some explanation is required for its
> >presence, since normally the verb "to be" would
> >be omitted in such a statement.
>
> I am among those who "feel this is unjustified", and the reason why I
> think so is again far beyond the vocabulary alone. <hayah> can fairly
> unambiguously mean "become" in some contexts (in the Nif'al binyan; or
> when followed by the preposition <le-> "to" as in Gen.2:7).
What you say is true, however, since I could only find three
places in the KJV where Hayah in Niphal was rendered become
it is hardly a large sample.
I don't say that critically, I, myself, am ambivilent on this
question. It is often used to theorize a "gap" between Gen 1:1
and Gen 1:3ff, and, supposedly, we have the ancient geological
ages, and the dinosaurs in that gap. This "gap" theory has many
issues that need to be addressed, even if "became" is the
translation here. I won't take the time to metion them, since
I don't really have the time. However, the question remains
as to why Hayah was used here. My question is purely a translational
one, I really don't have any theological baggage hanging on it.
Moreover,
> there are many contexts where there is no difference in meaning
>between
> "be" and "become", e.g. Gen.19:26 where "and after that she was a
> pillar
> of salt" would not mean anything different from "and she became a
> pillar
> of salt" (which is better English style); in such cases the aspect is
> the
> continuation of the narrative (hence the "after that" in my first
> clumsy
> translation). All these cases do not apply in Gen.1:2: no Nif'al, no
> preposition <le->, no narrative aspect. I have yet to see any example
> where a translation renders <hayah> as "become" other than in these
> cases.
That is true, however, it is translated in a form similar to
become such as "came to pass", which contains the same essential
meaing as become. (That is, a change from one state to another.)
Let me just cut down a little here. (I apoligize that I don't have
lots more time, but my parents are in town, and I figure I should
spend time with them, rather than hanging out with all the Internet
geeks :-)
>The next one is
> quite close: <we-ha-nachash hayah arum ...> (Gen.3:1) "and/but the
serpent
> was/became cunning". No translator puts "become" here, and all
introduce
> the sentence with "but" (or with a "now" which means "but").
I personally might argue that this is a prime candidate for "became"
because clearly the serpent was not always so. For, when God created
him, he was included in that which was described as "very good". It
might reasonably be argued that "Now the serpent became more wily..."
might be an explanation for this apparent contridiction. As to the
conjunction, you are probably right. Now, and But, do have significantly
different meanings, but lets not argue over a gnat. Especially since
they are both valid translations of wa.
> >WeRuach And [the] spirit
>
> ruach: can also mean "wind" or "storm", see for instance "the Lord
was not
> in the wind" (1Kg.19:11). "spirit" is already an interpretation.
Eccl.1:17
> is a text where some translators use "spirit" and others use "wind".
I don't have time to look into this much. Of course the same is
true of the Greek "pneuma" for spirit. However, it is fair to say
that ruach is the standard word for spirit. I'm sure some study
of this broader meaning would be very satisfying.
Anyway, in conclusion, although you have some interesting points,
I don't particularly see how they support the case for a requirement
of contextual or dynamic translation. They really are more questions
of vocabulary. The only exception is the waw consecutive, but that
doesn't even occur in Gen 1:2. It is true that vocabulary is in part
determined contextually, and that I will readily accept.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Helmut Richter
mejo...@my-deja.com writes:
>The only
>thing I feel the need to add is that the aspects of the verbs in this
>passage are dictated by this peculiar construct, the 'waw-consecutive'.
>Only Hebrew (and a few other Semitic languages) have this construct.
There are, in fact, *two* constructs that sometimes pass under the
name "waw-consecutive". One is a perfect-aspect verb prefixed with
<we-> in any of its forms <we->, <wa->, <u->; the other an
imperfect-aspect (more exactly a iussive, if this happens to be
distinct) verb prefixed with <wa->. You seem to allude to the latter
which I called "narrative aspect" for brevity in my posting because
that's how it occurs most often.
>There is no 'word-for-word' translation that can convey it accurately,
>unless you are willing to encumber the sentence with many adverbs of
>time that are NOT in the Hebrew text.
Yes, hence the "and after that" in my first, literal and bad
translation of Gen.19:26 in my posting. These words are not in the
original but an attempt to translate the aspect. In English, one way
to express that meaning is to use "become" instead of "be" when we
talk about something suddenly being there that was not there
before. Your comment has hopefully made this example of mine clearer.
>So what is a 'waw-consecutive'? It is a sentence construct for
>describing a sequence of events. If the sequence of events is in the
>past, the first verb in the sequence is Perfect, as is the case here
Not necessarily. Many texts in the Bible *start* with this construct,
e.g. the books Leviticus, Numeri, Joshua, Judges, and others.
*This* form of waw-consecutive needs no predecessor to indicate the
tense or aspect. (The *other* one does.)
>with the verb in Gen 1:1, "BaRa'". Then all the other verbs in the
>sequence are in the Imperfect, as is the case with all the verbs
>included in the 'word-for-word' translation given in the previous post.
>So the implication for this passage is that all the verbs in Gen 1:1
>through Gen 1:4 are sequential events.
>We could represent this by insisting on using 'and then' instead
>of 'and'. But this would sound hideous.
I'll take up that hideous sound to demonstrate the aspects. At the
first occurrence of "narrative aspect", it is bracketed.
(1a) perfect <bara'> "he created"
(2a) perfect <haytah> "she was" with subject first
(2a) no verb "and darkness over ..."
(2b) no verb with participle <merachefet> "and God's spirit hovering"
(3a) narrative <wayomer> "[and then] he said"
(3a) wish <yehi> "may it be" as literal quote
(3b) narrative <wayehi> "and then it was"
(4a) narrative <wayar'> "and then he saw"
(4b) narrative <wayavdel> "and then he separated"
(5a) narrative <wayiqra'> "and then he called"
(5a) perfect <qara'> "he called"
(5b) narrative <wayehi> "and then it was"
(5b) narrative <wayehi> "and then it was"
From verse 3 onward it is a quite normal story consisting of
consecutive events, interrupted in verse 5 where calling the darkness
"night" is not a step in the story but more of a side-remark to it,
perhaps "whereas the darkness he called 'night'". But I do not see
how this sequence starts before verse 3, as verse 2 contains no verb
other than <hayah>, and that one after the subject.
Helmut Richter
mejo...@my-deja.com
In article <8pr5la$ee5$1...@news.enteract.com>,
Helmut....@lrz-muenchen.de wrote:
>
>
> mejo...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >The only
> >thing I feel the need to add is that the aspects of the verbs in
this
> >passage are dictated by this peculiar construct, the
'waw-consecutive'.
> >Only Hebrew (and a few other Semitic languages) have this construct.
>
[snip]
> I'll take up that hideous sound to demonstrate the aspects. At the
> first occurrence of "narrative aspect", it is bracketed.
>
> (1a) perfect <bara'> "he created"
> (2a) perfect <haytah> "she was" with subject first
> (2a) no verb "and darkness over ..."
> (2b) no verb with participle <merachefet> "and God's spirit hovering"
> (3a) narrative <wayomer> "[and then] he said"
> (3a) wish <yehi> "may it be" as literal quote
> (3b) narrative <wayehi> "and then it was"
> (4a) narrative <wayar'> "and then he saw"
> (4b) narrative <wayavdel> "and then he separated"
> (5a) narrative <wayiqra'> "and then he called"
> (5a) perfect <qara'> "he called"
> (5b) narrative <wayehi> "and then it was"
> (5b) narrative <wayehi> "and then it was"
>
> From verse 3 onward it is a quite normal story consisting of
> consecutive events, interrupted in verse 5 where calling the darkness
> "night" is not a step in the story but more of a side-remark to it,
> perhaps "whereas the darkness he called 'night'". But I do not see
> how this sequence starts before verse 3, as verse 2 contains no verb
> other than <hayah>, and that one after the subject.
And the wrong aspect too. I stand corrected.
---------------------
Matthew Johnson
Ex Oriente Lux
Visit http://www.decani.yunet.com to see how
your tax dollars support the persecution of Christians
and the destruction of Christian Churches!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Kyle
nde_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> WeHaAretz And the earth
> Haytah became (*)
> Tohu formless
> WaBohu and void
> WeChoshech and darkness
> Al- [was] on
> Pinee the face of
> Tihom [the] deep
>
> WeRuach And [the] spirit
> Elohim of God
> Mirachepheth hovered(**)
> Al- on
> Pinee the face of
> HaMayim the waters
>
> * This verb Hayah is one point of controversy
> in this verse. Some have argued that it indicates
> a gap between 1:1 and the seven days following,
> some feel this is unjustified. One thing is clear
> is that "became" is certainly a valid translation
> here. (It is given such in an NIV footnote.) If
> not, then some explanation is required for its
> presence, since normally the verb "to be" would
> be omitted in such a statement.
>
> ** The exact meaing of this word is hard to determine.
> It is only used three times in the Bible, here, Dt 32:11
> and Jer 23:9. However, only the first two are in the Piel
> form, which, in Hebrew, is a major determinant of
> meaning.
I thought that the word in Genesis 1:2 for hover was rahap.
Not knowing much about Hebrew, I was suprised to see the word
mirachepheth referenced as the word for hover.
Would anyone care to enlighten me on this point?
Levina
Helmut Richter wrote:
>
> mejo...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >The only
> >thing I feel the need to add is that the aspects of the verbs in this
> >passage are dictated by this peculiar construct, the 'waw-consecutive'.
> >Only Hebrew (and a few other Semitic languages) have this construct.
>
> There are, in fact, *two* constructs that sometimes pass under the
> name "waw-consecutive". One is a perfect-aspect verb prefixed with
> <we-> in any of its forms <we->, <wa->, <u->; the other an
> imperfect-aspect (more exactly a iussive, if this happens to be
> distinct) verb prefixed with <wa->. You seem to allude to the latter
> which I called "narrative aspect" for brevity in my posting because
> that's how it occurs most often.
You are correct in saying that the waw-consecutive is used both with the
perfect and the imperfect. However, an imperfect with waw-consecutive is
not the same as a iussive (if that is indeed what you are saying here).
The iussive is only used in the second and third person singular and
plural of the imperfect, and never has a waw-consecutive.
Nash
Nash-LR
mejo...@my-deja.com wrote:
I have been reading this thread with much interest and have a few
remarks to make, if I may.
> [snip]
> So what is a 'waw-consecutive'? It is a sentence construct for
> describing a sequence of events. If the sequence of events is in the
> past, the first verb in the sequence is Perfect, as is the case here
> with the verb in Gen 1:1, "BaRa'". Then all the other verbs in the
> sequence are in the Imperfect, as is the case with all the verbs
> included in the 'word-for-word' translation given in the previous post.
>
> So the implication for this passage is that all the verbs in Gen 1:1
> through Gen 1:4 are sequential events.
I don't think that this is correct, because of the word hayeta in vers
2. If the story of Gen. 1:1 through 1:4 describes sequential events,
then verse 2 would have begun with "wattehi ha'aretz", in stead of
"weha'aretz hayeta". More likely verse 2 is in parenthesis, as most
scholars believe, reading the 3 verses as follows:
1. When God set about to create heaven and earth
2. [the earth then being a formless waste*, with darkness over the deep
and an awesome/divine** wind sweeping/hovering over the waters]
3. God said 'Let there be light.' And there was light.
Also, there is more to this than just linguistics. As you can see I
translated the first verse _not_ as 'In the beginning'. This would not
be a correct interpretation of the Hebrew original (I won't go into that
now, since the topic of the thread is verse 2 and I believe that verse 1
has already been discussed here, and this too has probably been
covered). If the first verse states that 'In the beginning God created
heaven and earth,' what ensued was then the chaos of verse 2. The same
is true if we translate the verb hayeta as 'to become'. The Creator
would, in other words, be charged with an inadequate initial
performance, unless one takes the whole of vs. 1 as a general title, and
the second vers as parenthetic, contrary to established biblical
practice, but which is, as said, confirmed by the syntax of the Hebrew.
I may add that the Jewish commentators reject the notion of chronology
here too and for exactly the same reason: a creation then resulting in
chaos. Rashi e.g. says that we should explain the verses as follows
(remarks between brackets are mine):
" 'in a/the beginning of the creation [beriat] of heaven and earth,
while the earth was still a formless waste and dark, God said: Let there
be light". And the verse [verse 1] does not want to teach us the order
of the creation, saying that these were before, for if it had wanted to
teach us that, it would have been written: 'Berishona bara et haShamayim
[and not: bereshit]'".
*'tohu wawohu' is a beautiful example of the so called hendiadys, that
is, two terms connected by 'and' and forming a unit in which one member
is used to qualify the other. Here the combination 'unformed-and-void'
is used to describe 'a formless waste'.
**'ruah elohim': as another poster has already remarked elsewhere in the
thread, the Hebrew ruah means primarily 'wind, breeze', then 'breath'
and lastly 'spirit'. In the present context the last connotation appears
to be out of place.
Nash
nde_...@my-deja.com
Kyle wrote in message <8q6ag3$1md$1...@news.enteract.com>...
>I thought that the word in Genesis 1:2 for hover was rahap.
>Not knowing much about Hebrew, I was suprised to see the word
>mirachepheth referenced as the word for hover.
>
>Would anyone care to enlighten me on this point?
They are the same word. mirachepheth is racheph with a "mi-"
prefix, and a "eth" suffix. The particular letter given as
ch in micrachepheth and h in rahap is a letter called cheth that
is transliterated as either h or ch. The actual Hebrew sound
is about half way between the two. Also, the p at the end is
asperated in some circumstances, meaning that it is pronounced
ph rather than p.
HTH.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Helmut Richter
Kyle <ky...@nospam.ewi.org> writes:
>I thought that the word in Genesis 1:2 for hover was rahap.
>Not knowing much about Hebrew, I was suprised to see the word
>mirachepheth referenced as the word for hover.
First a somewhat boorish but hopefully illustrative answer:
I thought that the word in your posting for think was think. Not
knowing much about English, I was suprised to see the word thought
referenced as the word for think.
Now more detail. First, the root consonants:
- The first is Resh, the same as a European (not necessarily English and
certainly not American) [r] sound, pronounced either uvular or
apical. No discrepancy so far.
- The second is Chet, with the "ch" now pronounced [x] as in "Loch Ness"
(not as in "chimney") or as an "h" pronounced so hard that it makes as
much noise as an [x]. It must be distinguished from the letter He
which is a normal [h] like the English one. The discrepancy is only in
the transcription whether one decides to transcribe Chet as "ch", "h",
or "kh".
- The third is Pe which is pronounced as [p] in syllable-initial
positions after consonants and in a handful of other cases, and [f] in
the remaining cases. Both <rachaf> and <merachefet> have the Pe in a
position where it is pronounced [f] (the plural would have been
<merachpot> with the Pe pronounced [p] because of its
post-consonantal position). The discrepancy is only in the
transcription whether one decides to transcribe such a Pe as "f",
"ph", or "p".
The remaining discrepancies (prefix <m->, suffix <-et>, vowel changes)
come from the concrete form of the verb: it is a singular female
participle meaning "hovering" or "a (female) hovering one".
Helmut Richter
Helmut Richter
I had written:
>> There are, in fact, *two* constructs that sometimes pass under the
>> name "waw-consecutive". One is [...]
>> the other an
>> imperfect-aspect (more exactly a iussive, if this happens to be
>> distinct) verb prefixed with <wa->.
Levina <Lev...@chello.nl> writes:
>You are correct in saying that the waw-consecutive is used both with the
>perfect and the imperfect. However, an imperfect with waw-consecutive is
>not the same as a iussive (if that is indeed what you are saying here).
I am sorry not to have been clear in my statement. The waw-consecutive
is constructed by prefixing the iussive (wish form) with <wa->; the
iussive itself has no such prefix. This is purely morphological: the
meaning of the narrative has nothing to do with wishes; only the
verb's ending is truncated in the same way for both verb forms.
My posting contained an example: <yehi> is a iussive "may he/it be".
Hence, the corresponding narrative aspect is <wayehi> with a prefixed
<wa->. For most verbs, iussive and imperfect coincide. However,
whenever they differ, the iussive and not the imperfect must be taken
to form the narrative aspect. In this very example, prefixing the
imperfect <yihyeh> would have been a mistake.
Helmut Richter
Kyle
Helmut Richter wrote:
> Kyle <ky...@nospam.ewi.org> writes:
>
> >I thought that the word in Genesis 1:2 for hover was rahap.
> >Not knowing much about Hebrew, I was suprised to see the word
> >mirachepheth referenced as the word for hover.
>
> First a somewhat boorish but hopefully illustrative answer:
>
> I thought that the word in your posting for think was think. Not
> knowing much about English, I was suprised to see the word thought
> referenced as the word for think.
Well, I knew I would get zinged for asking the question, but I had to
ask. Thanks for the less boorish response provided below.
>
>
> Now more detail. First, the root consonants:
>
> - The first is Resh, the same as a European (not necessarily English and
> certainly not American) [r] sound, pronounced either uvular or
> apical. No discrepancy so far.
>
> - The second is Chet, with the "ch" now pronounced [x] as in "Loch Ness"
> (not as in "chimney") or as an "h" pronounced so hard that it makes as
> much noise as an [x]. It must be distinguished from the letter He
> which is a normal [h] like the English one. The discrepancy is only in
> the transcription whether one decides to transcribe Chet as "ch", "h",
> or "kh".
>
> - The third is Pe which is pronounced as [p] in syllable-initial
> positions after consonants and in a handful of other cases, and [f] in
> the remaining cases. Both <rachaf> and <merachefet> have the Pe in a
> position where it is pronounced [f] (the plural would have been
> <merachpot> with the Pe pronounced [p] because of its
> post-consonantal position). The discrepancy is only in the
> transcription whether one decides to transcribe such a Pe as "f",
> "ph", or "p".
>
> The remaining discrepancies (prefix <m->, suffix <-et>, vowel changes)
> come from the concrete form of the verb: it is a singular female
> participle meaning "hovering" or "a (female) hovering one".
>
> Helmut Richter
>
mag
In article <8qai3o$10sj$1...@news.enteract.com>,
Kyle <ky...@nospam.ewi.org> wrote:
>
>
> Helmut Richter wrote:
>
> > Kyle <ky...@nospam.ewi.org> writes:
> >
> > >I thought that the word in Genesis 1:2 for hover was rahap.
> > >Not knowing much about Hebrew, I was suprised to see the word
> > >mirachepheth referenced as the word for hover.
> >
You seem to know a lot. Can you get trough the manifold meanings?
The one to one translation is not enough. We have to make a one-to-
several-translation. In this way is the entertainment and we loose the
problems of common translations. We have no original spoken trading,
but we have to consider that - with the joke - all limbs.
1) WeHaAretz But the earth (wa=and, also, but, yet, then, final,
that, though, for, since, because)
Haytah had became / war geworden
Tohu WaBohu formless and a void
2) But the earth / but ha+ar+az cheer / light / enliven is urge
Haytah that will astonish, amaze, dwell. (fut. from taa)
Tohu WaBohu will live by that
Who can help?
group. )))
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))