Dɑvïd

@JonEricson Mightily impressed with your perseverance, Jon. 👍

@PaulVargas I just saw these, and remembered something you coded up: (1) Hebrew transliteration; (2) Greek transliteration. :)

@Soldarnal Precisley my thoughts, re: ayjay's blog, too. Trust you're still :) keeping well!

@Soldarnal : Saw this and thought of you. :) Trust you're keeping well!

@Soldarnal - I'm not around these parts much any more, but it's good to see that threshold breached. Congrats! ;)

@JackDouglas It sure is clear now! ;)

@JackDouglas You are so right! Sorry about that! That's what I get for dipping in too quickly. So ... gotta AGREE! :D (Obviously I took "answer" to refer to the one that was deleted on Main, not Caleb's answer on Meta.)

@JackDouglas Read this through and ... gotta disagree! :/ I would have VtD'ed if I had noticed it in the review queue. 🤷‍♂️

@Bach I'm pretty sure that migration requires a ♦ mod like @Caleb, @Susan, or @Soldarnal. But not sure if you need to be a mod on the "source" site or "destination" site ... but one of our ♦'s will know! ;)

@JackDouglas In that case, you might find this interesting, Jack: biblicallanguagecenter.com

@ScottS "...Wasn't really fishing..." I know. :) I felt bad for the poor guy whose bounty went astray, and wanted to make sure your answer was appropriately recognized in that thread. ... + Matt 10:8b. ;)

@JackDouglas The poor guy was looking a little past it, wasn't he. 😂 (Of course, if there was more traffic in here, it would have scrolled out of sight and out of mind ages ago!) @PaulVargas

(That's Revelation 14:13, btw.)

@Susan ^^^^ Seems like Yale University Press does it right. ;)

And of course, the Stuttgart Bible Society site has the text of BHS onine, but you probably know that already.

@רבותמחשבות Do you mean their full text with apparatus? (Not available, so far as I know) Or their Hebrew base text? (Which will be pretty much the same as Tanach.us -- any differences are noted)?

@Susan Nice - it would be great to have your answer, in that case! I'd be interested to know what you've "run across", anyway.

@Susan I always meant to come back to that one... (and a few others besides). Hey ho. :/

@JackDouglas Good morning, Jack! Yes, that's Instone-Brewer's point, and I would concur. It seemed to me to include a helpful cautionary tale, though. ;)

(Hmmm -- busy in here all of a sudden!)

Important STEP Bible Update from Dr David Instone-Brewer <<< Read to the end for an example of why it's important that people who haven't actually learned biblical languages don't pretend they do by using publicly available electronic Bible tools.

@ktm5124 AnimatedHebrew.com is the one I always recommend. There's also the AMBS course based on Pratico & Van Pelt in "iTunes U". @Susan may know others.

@Caleb - You been busy? ;)

^^^^ Really??! :/

@enegue Hmmm... Difficult to know how to respond to this. But the English "representation" you offer of Josh 2:1 does not reflect the meaning of the Hebrew. I've tried to explain briefly but I hope clearly why that is so. If the problem is really how I'm "thinking about it", I'm afraid I have nothing to offer! Sorry.

(That's not, perhaps, the best set of examples ever [!], but I hope it makes sense!)

You could use shalach without preposition, but since it is your yad you're shalaching, English usage would require "stretch out (your hand)", where there is no word "out" in Hebrew -- but English usage needs it. The phrasing you have in English is English, but it does not represent that Hebrew of Josh 2:1.

@enegue Well, yes, but that takes some care. The prepositions in the case of those glosses is for English usage, not Hebrew. You can say "send for" in Hebrew with shalach, but then you would need le- "for" (or 'el) as preposition.

There is no preposition for "for" in the Heb of Josh 2:1, as required for your translation. Hope that helps!

In your translation, And Joshua the son of Nun sent is fine. But the next bit, מִֽן־הַשִּׁטִּ֞ים, "from Shittim" is its own phrase, and then "שְׁנַיִם־אֲנָשִׁים", "two men" is the (indefinite) object of Joshua's act of sending.

@enegue Hi - I haven't been much on the main site lately, so haven't see whatever it is this relates to, but the English you have a the top of that graphic, "And Joshua the son of Nun sent out for two men of Shittim" (ignoring "sent out for", which isn't Hebrew), would presuppose a Hebrew original of: וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ־בִּן־נוּן לְשְׁנֵי אַנְשֵׁי הַשִּׁטִּים

Anyway! I'll leave it there :) and get back to enegue's Hebrew matters later.

As I said, I don't think this is controversial, just a matter of basic clarity in description. But here's John Lyons from his Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics:

@curiousdannii "Morphology" !== "morphosyntax" (which is your term, not mine!).

@curiousdannii Yes, they're each their own domain, and I never said (or, I believe!) implied that "you understand a language if you only have one and not the other".

@curiousdannii No, philology isn't the right word. ;) NOT confusing morphology and semantics isn't "not doing linguistics", it's handling language description responsibly!

("The Greek 'deponent'", I mean, not middle/passive forms - there really are such things!)

@curiousdannii It confuses description of forms with lexicon/semantics. These are related, but they are not the same.

@curiousdannii Ah, but that's not morphology -- that's already an example of the problem I was warning against! ;)

Hi all - I don't know how much interest there might be in this "High Holiday Companion ebook" from the Jewish Review of Books, but I thought I'd share the link just in case. :)

@curiousdannii "Or is this your point..."‌​. Yes. ;) That captures it nicely! (Sorry - forgot to reply earlier.)

@Nathaniel Aarrrghhh! Did I really forget the link?! What a numpty. >.< I promise you, I had copied it ... it was just that small matter of actually pasting it that was the trouble! Glad you got it - thanks!

^^^^ If anyone is interested in that 2016 OUP title, The Latin New Testament, it's on open access, with a free PDF download from the link, circled in the image above. FWIW! @Nathaniel ??