Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Gen 14:6 and the construct state

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Donald R. Vance, Ph.D." <donaldrvance AT mac.com>
  • To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Gen 14:6 and the construct state
  • Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 02:09:40 -0500

We are talking about the MT. If you want to make up your own vowels, go ahead, but don't claim to be talking about Hebrew. Personal names also don't get pronominal suffixes. PNs and common nouns are two different kettles of fish, hence the different terminology. As for your examples in Judges, every one is "Beth-Lehem, Judah" and yes, they are appositional phrases and every published grammar that I know of treats them that way. However, as it turns out, Beth-Lehem would look the same in the absolute and the constuct states, so there is no morphological guide here. We say Atlanta, Georgia without the genitive marker "of"; they are simply in apposition. Beth-Lehem, Judah would follow that pattern. I did a search in Accordance for PN <within one word of> PN and the only examples I could find (granted, just a quick scan of the results) of the construction we are talking about-- Geographic Name next to Geographic Name--involve Beth-lehem. It is interesting in Micah 5:1, we have the identical construction but using Ephratha instead of Judah and no one understands that as a construct. Ephratha is an appositional phrase further identifying Beth-lehem: "Bethlehem, Ephratha."

There is one construction, however, that might give credence to your idea: ûr kasdim. Ur certainly seems to be a PN and the phrase is usually understood as "Ur of the Chaldeans." Granted, Ur has an unchangeably long vowel, so its absolute and construct states are identical in form; morphology doesn't help here. I guess an appositional analysis of this phrase is possible ("Ur, Chaldeans" meaning the "Chaldean Ur"), but seeing Ur as being in the construct state seems more plausible, at least to me. Ironically, the LXX treats ûr here as "the region of" and not as a PN. Go figure.


Donald R. Vance, Ph.D.
Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
Oral Roberts University
dvance AT oru.edu
donaldrvance AT mac.com


On May 5, 2010, at 12:04 PM, K Randolph wrote:

Donald:

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. <donaldrvance AT mac.com
wrote:

Jim,
OK, let's try this again. It is impossible for bhrrm to be a construct.
Period.


Not true. Possible if proper nouns (names).



Karl,
Proper Names do NOT occur in construct. Beth-Lehem Ephratha is NOT a
construct relation ship. It is an appositional phrase. How do I know this?
There is no reduction as occurs in nouns in the construct relationship.
Further, there are no examples of PNs in construct with the resulting vowel
reduction.

And where is your evidence of vowel reduction, or lack thereof, when the
vowels were not recorded at all?

If you mean the vowels of the MT? Forget it. They are wrong often enough
that I found them untrustworthy. So untrustworthy that I no longer use them,
nor even have them on the page as I read the text.

As for proper nouns, that is, names, not appearing in construct, what do you
make of Judges 17:7–8, 19:1–2, 18, and many more? Are these oppositional
phrases?

By the way, I think the moderators would prefer it if you sign your name.

Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page