[b-hebrew] After she had eaten, after the eating - 1 Sam 1:9 Inf Const with fem suffix versus inf const without?

Yonah Mishael yonahmishael at gmail.com
Sat Oct 21 21:28:31 EDT 2006


It is always appropriate to cite the verse that you are referring to.
Here is the citation for 1 Samuel 1:9:

ותקם חנה אחרי אכלה בשלה ואחרי שתה ועלי הכהן ישב על הכסא על מזוזת היכל ה׳

WTQM XNH )XRY )KLH B$LH W)XRY $TH W(LY HKHN Y$B (L HKS) (L MZWZT H'

)KLH, then is not "achlah," which is the 3fs perfect of )KL. Rather,
it is -- as you stated -- the infinitive construct, which has an
o-quality kamats katan vowel in the first syllable: okhlah (her
eating).

The reason that "drinking" also refers to Hanah is because she is the
subject of the verb WTQM (vatákom, "and she arose"). If the subject of
$TH (shatoh) were different from Hanah, we would expect a personal
pronoun to indicate the change of subject. I do not agree with your
evaluation of a change in subject here. Hanah is the one mentioned as
eating and drinking, IMHO.

I would repeat Yigal's question: what makes you assume that $TH is
alcoholic? And why would you think it unquestionable that Hanah would
drink alcoholic drink, even if this were the case? It is possible that
this is regular liquid refreshment or water, and it is just as
possible that Hanah had an alcoholic beverage without being
intoxicated.

Regards,
Yonah

On 10/20/06, Chris and Nel <wattswestmaas at eircom.net> wrote:
> There seems to be disagreement between my textual workbook and some
> translations and the Jewish interpretation concerning specifically the word
> "AaCHLaH",  alternative infinitive construct, or Infinitive construct with
> 3rd person fem suffix.
>
> The two interpretations are:
> 1. after the eating and the drinking in Shiloh
> 2. After she had eaten and drunk in Shiloh
>
> I dissagree with both and propose what seems to me the most rational
> ie...... After her eating in Shiloh and after the drinking.
>
> MEANING:  She had eaten BUT the drinking refers to Alchohol which She did
> not drink.  In other words there was drunkeness in Shiloh. But that Hannah
> had indeed eaten but not fully participated in family affairs at that
> moment.
>
> It seems that this, for me at least, is explained by TWO things:
> 1.  The verb SHaToH (drink) in  Inf Absolute????? while "eat" is in Inf
> const.
> 2. Word order where "in Shiloh" seems to be strategically placed before the
> drinking.
>
> I would appreciate your comments, corrections etc.
>
> Chris Watts
> Ireland.
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>


-- 
Yonah Mishael ben Avraham
Joplin, MO
yonahmishael at gmail.com


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list