[lit-ideas] Re: tense

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 11:34:58 +0100

1. There is a way to express a more or less analogous message but I doubt
that it would be very effective as a slogan

2. Not sure that this is correct. Islamic theology has concerns with what
God is like; for Al-Ghazali, he is powerful, merciful, living, posesses
language etc. The arguments in medieval Islamic culture between the
orthodox theologians (Ghazali) and the philosophers (e.g. Ibn Sina and
later Averroes) did not revolve around the existence of God but around
issues such as the ontological status of God's attributes and the manner in
which God created the world. The theologians held that God created the
world in time, while the philosophers argued that the world was also
eternal.

3. For the present tense of the other verbs, it is constructed without the
aid of 'to be'.  Where English has copula, in Hebrew it is simply omitted.

Donal orech-din.
Donal is a lawyer.

O.K.



On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> >I thought that I already pointed out that Hebrew does not have the
> present tense of 'to be,' hence it cannot express  I AM THAT I AM.>
>
> 1. Does this hold for "I AM WHAT I AM" ("I AM THAT I AM" not being a gay
> anthem, nor ever likely to be)?
>
> 2. In addressing 1., is it of any relevance that pre-Newtonian philosophy
> (and "natural theology" as a response to the rise of modern science) did
> not pretend to arguments as to *what *God was only *that* God was [e.g.
> the First Cause or "cosmological argument" concerned proof only *that *there
> is God not *what* kind of God there is; post-Newton this argument took a
> different bent, via "natural theology", of trying to address what kind of
> God there is compatible with modern science - but this 'compatibility' was
> not an issue for Aquinas or Anselm or Aristotle or even any of the Bs or
> Cs].
>
> 3. What in Hebrew does one do when in English one wants to say "I am
> thinking", "I am alive", "I am tired" etc.? What does Hebrew do where other
> languages use a present tense of 'to be'?
>
> 4. Perhaps 3. should be addressed first.
>
> Dnl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   On Monday, 2 March 2015, 8:37, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>  B’seder (aside from the relatively highly marked distance between Hebrew
> =everyday or even classical in Agnon etc. – and the torahic Hebrew which is
> a bit of a difficult …. Spiel)
>
> best
>
> *From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Omar Kusturica
> *Sent:* 02 March 2015 10:36
> *To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: tense
>
>  In every-day Hebrew one can of course "ani nimza bebeit holim" etc. but
> that is location, not the ontological I AM that is meant here.
>
>  O.K.
>
>  On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  That is know (the absence of present tenses)
> Maybe it helps to remind people that tense structures are not at all
> conceptual, hence each particular idiolect and dialect has particular
> tenses, if at all.
> Not any specific tense need to be morphologically expressed (morpho
> expression= in English, e.g. the unmarked are stem+’ed’ at the final right
> end position)
>
> *From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Omar Kusturica
> *Sent:* 02 March 2015 08:59
> *To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: The tetragrammaton
>
>  I thought that I already pointed out that Hebrew does not have the
> present tense of 'to be,' hence it cannot express  I AM THAT I AM.
>
>  O.K.
>
>  On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
> DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> O. K. writes wonders (if that's the verb) that "whether God originally
> spoke to Moses in some language other than Hebrew, such as Egyptian - is a
> matter of conjecture."
>
> re: his previous quotation
>
> "is the common  English  translation (JPS among others) of the
> response God used in the  Hebrew Bible when  Moses asked for his name
> (Exodus 3:14)."
>
> Mmm. So let's revise -- after all, Emerson said that conversation is not
> permitted without tropes. I shall hypothesise that a conversation did take
> place  between Moses and Good. Let's revise Exodus 3:13 and 3:14. 3:15 is
> mainly  Moses's counter-move in the conversation, "Yet they won't believe
> me."
>
> But in 3:13 we have Moses's question:
>
> "Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to
> them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What
> is
> his name?’ what shall I say to them?”"
>
> This is clear as can be.
>
> It's not as if Moses himself is interested to know the name. It's just in
> case the people of Israel _wonder_.
>
> 3:14 opens:
>
>
> 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”[a] And he said, “Say this to the
> people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
>
> Here there is a use-mention distinction:
>
> i. "I am" has sent me to you.
>
> Note that that differs from
>
> ii. "I am who I am" has sent me to you.
>
> God is advising Moses what his conversational move in reply to a possible
> question by the people of Israel to Moses as to what the name of 'the God
> of
>  your fathers'.
>
> This possibly struck Kripke in "Names and descriptions". For  consider:
>
> iii. If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your
> fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what
> shall
> I  say to them?
>
> In the above, Moses is distinguishing between what Donnellan has as a
> definite description:
>
> (D) "The God of your fathers".
>
> and
>
> a proper name.
>
> Note that it does not occur to Moses to have as a ready answer, "And why is
>  THAT relevant. I'm saying HE is the God of your fathers. What does a name
> add to  HIM?"
>
> Exodus 3:15 continues with what God thinks is the best reply for Moses to
> give, in case they ask for the name of the God of the fathers of the people
> of  Israel.
>
> "15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The
> Lord,[b] the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
> and the
> God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am
> to
> be  remembered throughout all generations."
>
> So, it does seem as, to echo Emerson, God is using a trope when he utters:
>
> v. Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
>
> vb. Say this to the people of Israel: "I am" has sent me to you.
>
> As Geary notes, Moses was careful about this, since when he faced the
> people of Israel and they asked for the NAME of the God of their fathers,
> "he
> must have been emphatic in the quotation marks".
>
> Postulating Egyptian as the source of the tetragrammaton does not seem to
> fit that it's FOUR letters, and four letters only, which are involved here
> --  unless in Egyptian only four letters are involved, too?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Speranza
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
>
>
>
>

Other related posts: