User talk:Smpf38

Celestial marriage

See Talk:Celestial marriage for my comments on your edit. –SESmith 23:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

מים שמים

These words actually have a dual morphology rather than a plural morphology as such, and the final "m" in מים often acts as a root consonant (as does that in שמים when the "he locative" ending is added). שמים seems to take plural adjective and verb agreement more often than מים, but there is no great difference in meaning between the word as used with singular vs. plural agreement. In short, מים and שמים have their own unique idiosyncracies and irregularities, which in the context of the article "Elohim" would tend to confuse those who don't know Hebrew, more than it would provide useful insights on the word "Elohim". AnonMoos (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "These words actually have a dual morphology rather than a plural morphology..." So, would you argue that words with a "dual" morphology are less plural than words with a "plural morphology"? Of course, that isn't the case. Even words with a dual morphology, usually used to indicate words referring to things that come in pairs (like eyes), are often translated as plural into English. These are words with non-singular ending but areused with a singular verb. - smpf38 (March 13th)

This is not a matter of philosophy and playing with the semantic definitions of the words "dual" and "plural". It's a simple objectively-verifiable factual matter that nouns in the ancient Hebrew language had separate dual vs. plural endings in the absolute state (some nouns in other contexts also). The words mayim and shamayim have dual endings (not plural endings like that of Elohim), there is no real contrast of number in these words (unlike Eloah vs. Elohim), and there are also a number of other details (some discussed in my message of last September above) which further indicate that the peculiarities of these words are not particularly usefully comparable to the peculiarities of Elohim. Neither mayim, shamayim, nor Elohim are at all "ordinary" words in Hebrew -- they each have their own rather idiosyncratic peculiarities, and the idiosyncratic peculiarities of mayim are mostly rather different from the idiosyncratic peculiarities of Elohim, which means that the word mayim is not particularly useful for the purpose of "explaining" Elohim... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are hiding huge concepts that must be discussed. In Hebrew (like in English), you can have these cases where even the noun itself appears to be singular in grammar and form, but it is in fact referring to more than one object (such as a collective). These are all different examples that destroy any premise or assumption that a singular verb or adjective must mean that what is being spoken of must be understood as a single entity. Instead, a singular verb form simply means that it is acting as if it is a single entity, which is a concept that is quite easy to understand.

Now, if I say, "the jury makes its decision", the apparent singular form and singular verb grammar usage by no means must indicate that there aren't many members of the jury.

So you have: 1)singular noun with a singular verb -> plural concept (the jury has more than one person)

Now with Elohim, if you had "[Gods] makes a decision", then you have: 2)plural noun with a with a singular verb.

How could you possibly argue that grammatically example #2 must be less plural in concept than #1? You can't, but that is precisely what you are trying to do. Smpf38 (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elohim again

In addition to comments directly above, the use of first-person plural pronouns is not the same as the plural morphology of Elohim. These are two separate phenomena, which can certainly be cross-correlated if the evidence supports this, but which should not be confused. AnonMoos (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to make a better effort to respond constructively to the concerns which others have raised about your edits, in order to help create an atmosphere conducive to cooperative collaboration

Dude, it's rather unfortunate that you still haven't bothered to address most of the points I raised previously above, while the only meaningful comment you've offered has been some quite dubious broad sweeping categorical assertions on the tangential subject of English-language pluralia tantum. I refer to such points as that MAYIM HAS DUAL MORPHOLOGICAL FORM (not plural), and THE PHENOMENON OF FIRST PLURAL PRONOUNS IS NOT THE SAME AS THE PHENOMENON OF THE PLURAL MORPHOLOGY OF ELOHIM (the two phenomena may ultimately turn out to be correlated, but they are simply not the same). AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I DID address your points. Smpf38 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't, not at the time when I wrote my comment above. AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For no good reason, you have deleted (twice) an excellent example of words that are NOT singular being used with singular verbs, the Hebrew word for "water". The example you provided gives no insight. Smpf38 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained six months ago last September, the words mayim and Elohim are not as parallel as you think they are. If your level of knowledge of Hebrew is such that you can't really understand the explanation as to why not, then that may be part of the problem right there... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AS for your point THE PHENOMENON OF FIRST PLURAL PRONOUNS IS NOT THE SAME AS THE PHENOMENON OF THE PLURAL MORPHOLOGY OF ELOHIM. That is actually addressed in my addition to the article. "While not the same as the plural morphology of Elohim,..." The point is not that it is the same grammatical phenomenon, but that it is a separate grammatical phenomenon that also indicates plural. I don't see why you have a problem with that.Smpf38 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word Elohim occurs with singular meaning or agreement thousands of times in the text of the Hebrew Old Testament, while first person plural pronouns which some may consider problematic occur pretty much in a handful of passages. So obviously, in most of the occurrences of Elohim in the Bible, there are no first person plural divine pronouns nearby. So it's very difficult to make a reasonable case as to how Elohim would somehow take its meaning from first person plural divine pronouns. This means that while the correlation between first person plural pronouns and Elohim can be discussed somewhere further down the page (if suitable information can be found), this should not be included in the basic grammatical explanation up near the top of the page. AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to break it to you ANON, but there are many examples of subjects that are not singular in meaning (or even not singular in morphology), but the singular verb/adjective is used with those subjects of the sentence anyways. When this type of sentence structure occurs, it occurs when two or more of something are acting as if they are one, while technically they are not. This is kind of like a collective noun in English (jury, team), but in Hebrew, in some cases it may still take the plural ending. Again, I give you some examples. Water, transliteration "mayim")מים has the plural ending "-im" but is used in a singular sense. This is because many waters (drops of water) can join together and act as one body of water. In fact, like Elohim, the single form of "mayim" is hardly used (if ever). But that doesn't mean that "mayim" cannot be understood as more than just singular. To the contrary, it is easy to see how water can be divided in two, over and over again, yet still maintains its essential characteristics. Eyes and ears act as one when serving as sensory organs (though technically we do have 2 eyes and 2 ears). Now, these are examples of "dual" roots, but a plural morphological form (like Elohim) is arguably more plural than just a dual root. In Hebrew (like in English), you can have these cases where even the noun itself appears to be singular in grammar and form, but it is in fact referring to more than one object (such as a collective). These are all different examples that destroy your premise and presumption that a singular verb or adverb must mean that what is being spoken of must be understood as a single entity. Instead, a singular verb form simply means that it is acting as if it is a single entity, which is a concept that is quite easy to understand. You know this fact: a singular noun or verb doesn't say squat about the actual number technically involved. Like if I say, "the jury makes its decision", the apparent singular form and singular verb grammar usage by no means must indicate that there aren't many members of the jury. So, quit pretending that the grammar absolutely must mean that Elohim must be understood as a singular concept when referring to "God". The plural pronouns are simply another evidence of God being referred to as plural. Smpf38 (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Grammar text

ANON says: "The word Elohim occurs with singular meaning or agreement thousands of times in the text of the Hebrew Old Testament, ..."::

Whether it has singular MEANING or not is precisely what is under debate. It is YOUR bias and interpretation that it absolutely must have a singular meaning. Your evidence for this is that the verb agreement is singular. However, your view is easily disproven by mounds of examples and evidence in the Hebrew language. For example, singular verbs are used when talking about eyes or ears (even when clearly referring to more than one eye or year). In other words, singular verbs are used even when the subject acting is not singular in meaning! Your refusal to divulge this information to the readers of this article demonstrates that you have no intention of providing a balanced and full disclosure of the facts.Smpf38 (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANON says: The word Elohim occurs with singular meaning or agreement thousands of times in the text of the Hebrew Old Testament, while first person plural pronouns which some may consider problematic occur pretty much in a handful of passages. So obviously, in most of the occurrences of Elohim in the Bible, there are no first person plural divine pronouns nearby. So it's very difficult to make a reasonable case as to how Elohim would somehow take its meaning from first person plural divine pronouns.::

Well fortunately for me, that isn't the case being made by me or anybody else. You insist that Elohim (when referring to the "single" God) can by no means be understood as having any meaning other than singular. However, we have in the Hebrew texts an entirely different grammatical phenomenon whereby God refers to himself with a PLURAL pronoun. It isn't that I'm claiming Elohim "takes its meaning from first person plural divine pronouns". That is your straw man. You must admit the possibility that Elohim can include the idea of more than one Divine being, and therefore used the plural pronoun to refer to ... yes, ...themselves. This collective-like concept would explain BOTH grammatical phenomena. Smpf38 (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew grammar

In most English translations of the Bible (e.g. the King James Version), the letter G in "god" is capitalized in cases where Elohim refers to the God of Israel, but there is no distinction between upper and lower case in the Hebrew text.

Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text. Traditionally, the God of Israel is understood as a singular Deity. Nevertheless, there is significant debate over the meaning of the plural morphology of "Elohim".

The first words of the Bible are breshit bara elohim, where bara ברא is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect. It should be noted that the plural verb form bar'u בראו was not used in this sentence. Though the plural noun is used, "Elohim" is acting as a singular entity. Some plural grammatical forms are in fact found in cases where Elohim has semantically plural reference (not referring to the God of Israel).

There are a few other words in Hebrew that have a plural ending, but refer to a single entity and take singular verbs and adjectives, for example בעלים (be'alim, owner) in Exodus 21:29 and elsewhere. In fact, the Hebrew language has more than one morphological form that are not singular, yet may be used with singular verbs. For example, the Hebrew word for "water" (מים transliteration "mayim") is another Biblical example of a Hebrew word that appears to have a plural ending. In Strong's concordance, this is described as "dual of a primitive noun (but used in a singular sense)." This can be visualized when you consider that many "waters" (drops of water) come together to form a single body of water. That body of water (such as the sea) may then act as if it is a single object or force. In fact, many Biblical translations include "mayim" translated to "waters" (287 times in the King James version).

While not the same grammatical phenomoneon as the plural morphology of Elohim, the God of Israel does appear to be referred to as plural in the use of first-person plural pronouns elsewhere in the text, "Let us create man in our own image, after our own likeness" (Gen 1:26). This is sometimes used as separate evidence that the plural morphological form of Elohim does indicate some kind of plural meaning.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]