Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Moon-Ryul Jung" <moon AT computing.soongsil.ac.kr>]

Dear Peter,
thank you for your kind explanation. Let me go back to the issue of the
original post: 

Why isn't the following construction allowed in BH?

 (1) HABBAYIT BA):A$ER HF)IY$ (the house in which the man (is) )

BH allows only

 (2) HABBAYIT ):A$ER HF)IY$ BOW (the house which the man (is) in it)

It reminds me that English does not allow

(3) the house in that the man is
but only 
(4)  the house in which the man is.

It also seems that (5) sounds better than (6), though both are
not grammatical.

(5)  the house that the man is in it.
(6)  the house which the man is in it.

Don't the above examples suggest that ):A$ER is similar 
more to "that" than to "which"?

So, if we can explain why (3) is not valid and why (5) sounds better than
(6), we might be able to find a way to explain why (1) is not valid in BH.
Would anyone attempt to do it? As a non-native speaker of English, I do 
not
seem to have enough intuition into the use of "that"

Sincerely
Moon

Moon-Ryul Jung
Assistant Professor
Dept of Computer Science
Soongsil University, Seoul, Korea
 

 

> 
> BAYIT KA):A$ER HF)IY$ BOW (a house like that the man was in).
> .........
> 
> A case like KA):A$ER HF)IY$ B.OW, or the same with BA):A$ER, I would 
> explain as follows: as in the previous example ):A$ER HF)IY$ B.OW is 
> an adjective phrase, but as it does not descibe a noun it has become 
> nominalised and so can take a preposition