How does the AENT 4th edition compare to the others?

[Paul Younan]

How did you get all that out of a simple Daleth Proclitic ? Can you see how it appears to everyone else here that your translation of this verse was tainted by your theological bias?

+Shamasha

I can see that you have an unfounded bias against me, and are slanting your posts accordingly. Unlike you, I have never translated (d:mor:yo-) without translating the "d" prefix as "of". So the premise of your post is wrong from the get-go; wrongly portrayed, wrongly assessed.

Regarding my translations of (mor:yo-) itself, I have worked in a range of what I think is acceptable, sometimes using an internal construct; but unlike you, never professing to have the definitive answer for (mor:yo-). Yet, I have a pretty good idea of what it can't be, based upon contextual conflict.

And how is that you pretend to know what my beliefs or theology are? If your culture permits you to belittle others over something you know nothing of, in the name of "truth"; then you have neither a proper culture or the truth.

It is very correctly portrayed, and very correctly assessed. And I'm not the only one who portrayed and assessed it as such. I wasn't even the first one. Re-read the thread to verify.

You seem to have a very elementary understanding of the Daleth Proclitic (which can in its simplest usage mean "of"), but also depending on context can serve as a relative pronoun (who, that) and even "as". The relative sections from Thackston's Grammar is included below for your reference and education.

The Daleth Proclitic used as "who":





The Daleth Proclitic used as "as":





The Daleth Proclitic used as "that":





One more culture comment from you and you'll be banned for life. The one thing my "culture" permits in this case is to call out BS when I see it. And I'm looking right at it with your "translation" and your pretension of knowledge. I know exactly what your theological bias is because of your previous posts on the topic of MarYah. It's not a mystery to anyone on this forum.

Before I even joined the thread, you had already called Chuck "inept", "ungrateful", "self adulating", "froward" and many other unkind terms. Perhaps before you claim I hurt your feelings and belittled you, you should re-read how you treated others.

One more time before I lock this thread as your side-stepping antics are getting out of hand, and my patience with you is running out....I'll ask once again:

How did you get 'of-that' out of a simple Daleth Proclitic? I didn't ask you how you got "of", I asked you how you got "of-that"...your original post is below in case you forgot what you wrote.



With one little alteration of the text, you've completely changed the entire meaning of the verse to suit your bias. You don't understand the nature of the "of", as you mentioned in your post. It's not an "of" at all. It's "that."

And here is a link to Thackston's Grammar, so you could get a bit of an understanding for future debates. At least if you try to apply the lessons, there's only 20 of them, we could have a more meaningful discussion on this topic in the future. Right now it's futile with you.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49288019/Intro...-Trackston

The method of your response to this question will determine whether you are allowed to continue to post on this forum. I want an explanation, with evidence as I have given you. Not another wild good chase.

+Shamasha