Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

GKC section 104b seems to confirm what I already thought, that a 
preposition before ):A$ER has a different function from one with -OW 
etc ending within the subordinate clause. While ):A$ER is usually 
equivalent to English "which", which fulfils an adjectival role in the 
main clause and a nominal role in the subordinate clause, it can also 
be equivalent to English "that, which", which fulfils the role of a 
noun (or pronoun) in both the main clause and in the subordinate 
clause. So BA):A$ER is equivalent to "in that, which", the preposition 
relates to the main clause, whereas ):A$ER... BOW is equivalent to 
"that, in which", with the proposition relating to the subordinate 
clause. At least, that is what I would expect without looking at any 
occurrences. On this basis KA):A$ER means "like that, which", giving a 
comparison in the main clause. Also we would not expect to find 
combinations like HABBAYIT BA):A$ER HF)IY$, as in the English "the 
house in which the man is" "which" is adjectival in the main clause 
and cannot take a preposition.

Peter Kirk

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: 'asher with prepositions
Author:  dwashbur AT nyx.net at internet
Date:    18/03/1999 01:29


Lately I've been looking into the phenomenon of "resumptive" 
pronouns in 'asher clauses, the kind of the form
"Noun - 'asher clause - preposition with pronoun whose antecedent 
is the Noun before 'asher"
e.g. HaBaYiT )a$eR Ha)iY$ BoW, "the house which the man is in 
(it)"

At first it would be easy to say Hebrew does this because the 
preposition needs something to attach to; however, there are 
profuse occurrences of combinations such as Ba)a$eR, La)a$eR, 
Me)a$eR, and of course the ubiquitous Ka)a$eR.  So I'm wondering 
why an author would sometimes choose to move the preposition with 
the 'asher, and sometimes choose not to and put the preposition 
with an anaphor instead.  Has anybody looked into this question?  
Perhaps I should mention that I'm assuming 'asher
clauses are derived by transformation (specifically what is called in 
English WH-movement), and am looking at the "resumptive"
pronouns from the POV of their effect (if any) on the question of 
transformational grammar's trace theory.  Has anything been done 
on usage of these two structures?

Thanks,
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.