Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Kirk Lowery <KirkLowery AT xc.org>]

Thanks to all who responded.

Most of the translations gloss over the syntactic issues here; that's not to
criticize the translations: they don't have my problems! :-/  It comes up
because in databases, every element has to be assigned *some* sort of value, 
and
I can't just pass over it. <sigh>.

Let's start with the morphology:

1:40b w:hf`fm         m:xal.:liym          b.ax:aliliym      w.&:m"xiym 
      cj + art + n    masc pl pi ptc XLL   prep + masc pl n  cj + masc pl adj
      and-the-people  to-flute             with-flutes       and-joys


      &im:xfh   g:dowlfh
      fem sg n  fem sg adj
      joy       great

The first three words are clear syntactically: conj + subject + verbal
participle + adverbial phrase (of instrument). The last three words are more
problamatic. My first reaction is to understand an elided beth and include
w.&:m"xiym with the previous and so we have a second adverbial phrase (they
fluted with flutes and with "joys"). But that leaves us with what to do with 
the
last two. If they are an ordinary noun/adjective pair, then what is their
syntactic function? Could we understand them instead as a verbless clause 
which
is tacked on "asyndetically," without conjunction, to modify w.&:m"xiym? If it
is a simple phrase modifying &:m"xiym, then why the shift in number to the
singular with &im:xfh? So we have a free translation something like: "And the
people played their flutes with joy--and that joy was great."

The fact that the words of the same root--&MX--follow one right after the 
other
tempts me to end the first clause at b.ax:aliliym, w.&:m"xiym becomes the
subject of a verbless clause, with &im:xfh g:dowlfh as a noun/adjective noun
phrase becomes the predicate. So our free translation becomes "And the people
played flutes, and the rejoicing was a great joy." Or something like.

I admit that the difference in meaning, even the difference in emphasis, is 
not
very great between the two alternatives. But the syntax is quite different.

Bryan Rocine wrote:

> You must mean that the challenge is to decide whether  b is an independent
> clause or a phrase continuing  a.   ha`am has tracking value.   I.e., it
> would be the linking feature of  b  to  a  .  But tracking *within* a
> clause is usually performed by a pronoun, right?  Here we have tracking by
> a definite noun, I guess elevating the linking to an *inter-clausal* level.

Yes, it's clear that its interclausal function is an off-line descriptive
comment fleshing out the wayyiqtol. And the participle gets its time reference
from that verb. And the shift in narrative function probably accounts for 
hf`fm
not being pronominalized.

Paul Zellmer wrote:

> So I take this
> part of the verse as two clauses:  Su + Ptcp(V) + Adv phrase(instrumental) 
> and (Su) +
> Ptcp(V) + Obj + Adj.  The second Hf`fM distinguishes the pipers and 
> rejoicers from
> Solomon.

I made a similar assumption as you at first glance--but there's only one
participle, not two. &im"xiym is actually the plural of an adjective &im"xa.

Which leads me to a *third* reading: the plural adjective is its own clause
(predicate adjective agreeing with the collective), with the understood 
subject
being hf`fm! So there could be three clauses here: "And the people played
flutes, they were filled with joy--and that joy was great."

I'm leaning towards the third alternative reading. Which is yours and why?

Blessings,

Kirk
_____________________________________________________________________________
Kirk E. Lowery, Ph.D.                              voice: (215) 572-3845
Associate Director of Academic Computing             fax: (215) 887-5404
Adjunct Professor of Old Testament                 email: <KirkLowery AT xc.org>
Westminster Theological Seminary              
Philadelphia, PA 19118