Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

On this one, I remember seeing a lot of cases when working through 
Kings etc of the construct B"YT apparently standing for B:B"YT or 
perhaps L:B"YT, especially when followed by YHWH. GKC section 118g 
obliquely mentions this in discussing use of the accusative (i.e. the 
bare noun) for location: "In all of the above examples, however, the 
accusative amy have been preferred to the natural construction with 
B.: (which is not rare even with B."YT and P>E+AX ) for euphonic 
reasons, in order to avoid the combinations of sounds B.:B' and B.:P' 
.."

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Ruth 1:9
Author:  zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph at internet
Date:    19/03/1999 11:31


The second clause in Ruth 1:9 is the source of the next 
question.  The clause is:

UWMCE)NF MeNUWXFH )I$$FH B"YT )IY$FH.

The first two words did not cause a lot of problems, and the 
group seemed to handle the third okay.  But the real confusion 
came in determining how to relate the last two words, which make 
up a construct chain, to the rest of the clause.  One of their 
attempts treated the chain like it had a preposition beth 
attached to it: "And you (pl) find a resting-place, each woman 
_in_ the house of her husband."  Another option put forward was 
to treat the chain as if it were in apposition to the resting 
place: "And you (pl) find a resting-place, each woman, (namely) 
the house of her husband."  Are they missing an obvious clue 
here?  If so, I sure don't see it.  How would you handle this 
clause?

Paul

--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran 
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph





---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.