Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[4]: 'asher with prepositions

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re[4]: 'asher with prepositions
  • Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 13:02:13 -0500


Dear Moon,

I think I may have confused you by bringing in the comparison with
English. Hebrew may be no more like English than Korean. In fact I
think a closer English equivalent to ):A$ER might be "the following"
followed by a colon. For it seems to me that the word ):A$ER is
related syntactically to the main clause rather than to the
subordinate clause. Azerbaijani has a similar conjunction "ki" (though
it cannot take prepositions) in which this relation is made clear in
that (according to the pronunciation) a comma is always written after
"ki", making it part of the main clause rather than the subordinate
clause. I think you are confused because you are trying to parse
):A$ER as part of the subordinate clause. On my view HABBAYIT ):A$ER
HF)IY$ BOW could be glossed "the following house: the man (is) in it".
But HABBAYIT BA):A$ER HF)IY$ would not make sense: it would mean
something like "the house in the following (one): the man is". Thus
KA):A$ER would be "like the following one:" or simply "as follows:".

Peter Kirk





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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page