From: George Athas (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 16 1998 - 20:51:25 EST
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> Well, I'd say that if TO hUPER hUMWN EKCUNNOMENON is supposed to be
> understood as agreeing with hAIMATI, it ought to be written as TWi hUPER
> hUMWN EKCUNNOMENWi. I guess this comes back to the point that you want
> somehow to understand TO as a "relative pronoun," and I don't see how it
> can be.
> I'm going to drop this now; I think everyone understands the position that
> each of us has argued and they're probably bored to death!
I'll drop it too, now, Carl. However, no, I am not saying that TO hUPER hUMWN
EKCUNNOMENON is attributive of TW hAIMATI MOU. If it was then, yes I agree it
should be TWi hUPER hUMWN EKCUNNOMENWi. I am saying it is a predicate, and
therefore TO hUPER hUMWN EKCUNNOMENON is perfectly legitimate.
Enough said, I guess. The voyage is over.
PhD (Cand.), University of Sydney
Tutor of Hebrew, Moore Theological College
Phone: 0414 839 964 ICQ#: 5866591
(Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:12 EDT