Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Henry Churchyard" <churchh AT crossmyt.com>]

> Subject: When absolutes aren't absolutes and constructs aren't constructs
> From: "Jeremy" <jnorthct AT hotmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 06:41:05 -0400

> Can someone explain to me why so many absolute forms of words are
> employed in a construct position and many construct forms are
> employed in an absolute position?  Take, for example, the word "a
> hundred."  In some places the absolute form, M)H, is employed in a
> construct position (e.g., Jud 7:19), and the construct form, M)T, is
> employed in an absolute position (e.g., Ecc 8:12), and even one case
> where it is employed in an absolute plural position (Gen 23:15).  We
> even have the absurdity at Num 2:24 where M)T is employed for an
> absolute expression, and M)H for a construct expression!

The whole absolute vs. construct state distinction is not as relevant
for numerals as it is for ordinary nouns, since the main uses of the
construct state are to signal noun-noun compounds, or possession, but
when a numeral precedes a noun, then such a phrase is not actually
either a "compound" or a possessor-possessed situation in any true
sense.  So in the numerals there are forms which cannot be classified
as being either contruct or absolute (e.g.  "sh@neym" and "shteym" in
"sh@neym-`asar" and "shteym-`esre"), forms which act quite differently
from nouns with parallel morphology (e.g. the numerals from 20-90 end
with masculine plural "-im" ending, but do not form constructs ending
in "-ey" as nouns do), etc.

--
Henry Churchyard   churchh AT crossmyt.com   http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/