[b-hebrew] 1Kings 3:19 )$r a relative?
C. Stirling Bartholomew
jacksonpollock at earthlink.net
Sun Oct 10 14:48:08 EDT 2004
R. Holmstedt's paper on the Headlessness [Relative] and Extraposition* can
be read without knowing the details of minimalism. Looking the paper over
again, it seems that the central thesis: that causal, final, results ...
clauses introduced by )$r could also be understood as headless relative
clauses, some of which are separated from their fictitious antecedent "e" by
other constituents -- It seems that this proposal could be successfully
presented while eschewing the rebarbative obfuscations of minimalism.
Can we discuss Holmstedt's proposal and ignore the infelicities of the
analytical model? I think we can. We have already identified a sample text
where )$r does not introduce a headless relative clause.
> R. Holmstedt* argues that )$r does not introduce final/result clauses contra
> Waltke/O'Conner #38.3b.1. How would you read the function of )$r in:
> Deut. 4:10 w)$m(M )t-dbry )$r ylmdwN lyr)h )ty
Holmstedt tells us this is one of about 10 exceptions. O.K. lets ignore
Deut. 4:10 and move on to one of his strong examples.
1Kings 3:19 wymt bN-h)$h hz)t lylh )$r $kbh (lyw
So what do you think? Is )$r introducing a relative clause in 1Kings 3:19?
For Holmstedt's treatment see page 13 of his paper*.
* 2001. " Headlessness and Extraposition: Another Look at the Syntax of
[asher]." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 27(1):1-16.
Holmstedt papers are available here:
More information about the b-hebrew