From: Randall Buth (ButhFam@compuserve.com)
Date: Mon Apr 15 2002 - 14:12:01 EDT
shalom Clay,
I was wondering if you'd send this question.
>
>Do you think this is the way the LXX translator understood this issue? I
>suspect that the use of EPISTREFW in Zech 10:9-10 may be a minor example
of
>what are called stereotyped translation equivalents. And if this is so, it
>would seem that the stereotyping was being done on the basis of root
"shuv."
>The translator seems to have been thinking something like, "I just used
>EPISTREFW to translate "shuv" so I will use it again.
>
>What do you think about this. There is a lot of this stereotyping in the
>LXX. Does it demonstrate that Qal and Hifil forms were considered
different
>words?
Well, stereotypical translation equvalents would mean that the LXX
translator wouldn't have had much say in the matter. If for him
hu heshiv should be translated EPISTREYAI, then he would.
And if hu shav was to be normally EPISTREYAI, then so be it.
Basically, the problem is in Greek and is unrelated to Hebrew.
i.e. EPISTREYAI can be both transitive and intransitive in Greek.
One does not mix up hu shav and hu heshiv (oto) in Hebrew.
In other words, an 'accident' in one language doesn't bind a different
language. In a Mayan dialect I once played with, they call cat "meece"
and horse "cow". No English contact, just their "problem".
blessings
Randall Buth
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:24 EDT