peter at qaya.org
Tue Nov 1 18:42:30 EST 2005
On 01/11/2005 22:18, B. M. Rocine wrote:
>... The only possible counter example I know of is Exo 1:15.
>(a.) vayyo'mer melek mistrayim lamyalldot ha`ibriyyot
>(b.) 'asher shem ha'axat...
>I wonder if the "rule" I have sketched here has any impact on whether we
>should read lamyalldot or limyalldot in v. 15. I think it does by
>ruling out lamyalldot!
>I still have reservations, however, because even limyalldot is
>grammatically definite by virtue of its place in an alledged definite
>construct chain. Hmmmmmmmmmm.
But does your rule still apply when the new character is a definite
person, an individual holder of a specific office (or in this case a
pair of them)? I note for example that in Genesis 40:1 "the king of
Egypt" is introduced with with a definite construct chain (made definite
by the proper name at the end) rather than an indefinite one, as there
was only one king of Egypt here (as opposed to the rather odd 2 Kings
7:6). Admittedly this doesn't have the "and the name of the..." phrase;
it is interesting that this phrase does not seem to be used of specific
kings etc but generally only of characters newly introduced in
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew