>>: [b-hebrew] baccar l- "in distress"

S. L. lyosovs at cityline.ru
Mon Mar 10 18:33:20 EST 2003

----- Исходное сообщение -----
От: "S. L." <lyosovs at cityline.ru>
Кому: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew at franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
Отправлено: суббота, марта 08, 2003 7:03
Тема: На: [b-hebrew] baccar l- "in distress"

>        I quote here parts of  my correspondence with Peter Kirk on the
> problem. It took place on this list in December 2002.
> I believe now that all  bac.c.ar l- in the OT are stative perfects.
>        Serge Lyosov
> Dear list,
> I have hard times parsing Ps 18:7 bac.c.ar li (c. = tsade). BDB 865a
> has it as a noun 'straits, distress': 'in my distress'. HALAT 990b has
> it as Perf. 3ms of c.rr II 'ist in Not', i.e. as an impersonal verb.
> In view of Gen 32:8 wayyec.er lo 'he became distresses' and Ruth 1:13
> 'ki mar li mikkem' + Jer 4:18 'ki mar' 'for it is bitter' etc. I would
> take bac.c.ar li for a verbal phrase 'when I was distressed', but how to
> explain the gemination of tsade? GK 138i is rather reluctant to admit -
> without a compulsory reason - the article as relative pronoun on
> perfects, and it does not list Ps 18:7 among the examples.
> The very same 'bac.c.ar li' reappears in Ps 66:14. In Pss 59: 17 and
> 102:3 it is written 'byom c.ar li'. To my mind (and against BDB)
> here 'byom' does introduce a Perf. 'c.ar', serving as a relative
> pronoun, cf. Lev 7:35; Deut 4:15; 2 Sam 22:1.
> Does anybody have suggestions?
> Serge Lyosov
> I don't see the problem. What is wrong with BDB's parsing of CAR as a
> noun? This is well attested, BDB notes 27 occurrences as a noun plus 6
> as an adjective, in 15 of which the one in distress is indicated by L-.
> Also the attested perfect form of the verb CRR is not CAR but CFRAR, Hos
> 4:19 and Prov 30:4.
> Peter Kirk
>  Yes,  BDB has it in a very straightforward way. On p.862b (c.rr I B.
> intrans.) the only Perf. form it  lists  is 3fs c.a:ra: Is 28:20. It is
> definitely a perf.  not an adjective - because of  perf. in the first
> and also because of penult stress. But BDB does not seem to list Jud 11:7,
> S 13:6, 1 S 28:15, 2S 1:26, 2S  24:14, Ps 31:10, 69:18, Thr 1:20, 1 Chr
> 21:13 anywhere: neither under noun/adj. c.ar nor under verb c.rr. (In Ps
> 59:17, 102:3 BDD has nouns.) HALAT lists all these contexts as
> perfects of c.rr. Js 49:20 seems to be disputed.
> Now c.a:rar in Hos 4:19 and Prov 30:4 is an active verb (from the point of
> view of both meaning and pattern),  while a geminated verb that has
> transitive as well as intransitive uses might well have both patterns
> (althouh I am unable to adduce another example).
>    If one compares Gen 32:8 wayyec.er lo 'he became distresses' with Jud
> 11:7 ka`$er c.ar la:kem 'when you are un trouble' one is inclined to think
> that both predicates are verbal (if we do not want to introduce a position
> of neutralization in our Hebrew  Grammar for stative perf. 3ms ~ adjective
> ms; I hope in most cases the ambiguity can be resolved on the basis of
> paradigmatic relations).
>    Now bac.c.ar li in Ps 18:7 and parallels seems to be syntactically
> equivalent to ka`$er c.ar la:kem (b+ha ~ k+`a$er if we take into account
> uses of the article as a relative pronoun before perf. listed in GK 138i).
>   Serge Lyosov
> OK, I see your point that the matter is not as simple as I thought,
> though I don't have time to look at the evidence in detail just now. So
> I accept that CAR could be a verb. But it is also clearly attested as a
> noun. So the form BAC.AR is either a very rare (though not unattested)
> use of B- and the article with a finite verb, i.e. the article as a
> relative pronoun, or it is a perfectly normal construction with a noun.
> Why prefer the rare construction to the regular one?
> Peter Kirk
> Right now I had a rapid look at the evidence as adduced in the c.ar II BDB
> entry and thought that it permits one to surmise that all instances of
> bac.c.ar + prep. le are verbs not nouns (against BDB), since, as it seems,
> there is no bec.ar li/lka (without article), but there are instances of
> beyom c.ar li, beyom being a well-known relative element, roughly
> to ba`$er/ka`$er . The truth is there is bac.c.ar (e.g. Ps 4:2), without
> an undoubtful noun. Well, I began to experience doubts. Still, if we admit
> that c.ar li, mar li are verbs, they will probably survive as verbs in
> syntactic transformation.
> Serge Lyosov
> Cf. also as possible contr-examples Jes 26:16, 63:9; Ps 4:2; 32:7; 60:13;
> 74:10; Job 7:11!

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list