Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Et (Genesis 1:1)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dr. Reinhard G.Lehmann" <lehmann AT mail.uni-mainz.de>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Et (Genesis 1:1)
  • Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 11:40:32 +0200


Daniel and all,

Charles David Isbell already made out some important points.
I want to add some more:

1. For the use and function of the object marker 'et see:
A. M. Wilson, "The Particle 'et in Hebrew": Hebraica 6 (1889-1890) 139-50,
212-24 who suggested that suffixed 'et following a verb as pronominal
accusative has an emphatic function, whereas direct
pronominal suffix to the verb has not that connotation. But maybe there's
something more to say.
For recent discussion see:
John Elwolde, The Use of ’ÉT in non-Biblical Hebrew Texts: VT 44 (1994)
170-182,
G.I. Davies, The Use and Non-use of the Particle ’et in Hebrew Inscriptions,
in: Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax. FS J. Hoftijzer. Hg. v.
K.Jongeling, H.L.Murre-van den Berg, L.van Rompay. Leiden:
Brill 1991. 14-26,
Jacob Hoftijzer, Remarks Concerning the Use of the Particle 't in Classical
Hebrew: Oudtestamentische Studien 14 (1965) 1-99,
and recently
Michael Malessa, Differentielle Objektmarkierung im Klassischen Hebraeisch:
KUSATU 1 [Proceedings of the 1st Mainzer Hebraistisches Kolloquium], Waltrop
2000, 133-156.

2. For some instances of unusual use of the object marker 'et maybe we have
to think in structures of ergativity.
There are some obvious examples of )et with the nominative. They are to be
denied, or emended, ore explained (see for instance Neh 9:34; 1 Sam 17:34;
Jdc 20:44; 2 Kg 6:5; Neh 9:9, or, as subject of a
passive Verb, Gen 4:18; 21:5; 27:42. In nominal clauses: Josh 22:17; Num
35:7; Dtn 14:12-14; Ez 10:22.

3. Although the object marker 'et and the preposition 'et in Biblical Hebrew
mostly look identical (but there are only few text where you can doubt which
one of them is meant), there is a sharp
distinction between them. They only look identical because of their
non-stressed monosyllabic form.
The etymology of the object marker 'et clearly is old canaanite 'iyyat (>
'iyyot with canaanite shift of long a > o), compare the suffixed forms in
Biblical Hebrew ('oti, 'ot:ka, 'oto, 'otam etc). It
is attested in old Phoenician, but not in the old Byblian inscriptions, later
in Punic it reduced to nearly vowelless 't. Aramaic it appears first as
Sam'alian *'wat > wat, than yat (but still with <w>
in forms like lwat, kwat), but was no longer in common use in Achaemenid
Times (Imperial Aramaic), though there is still one example in Biblical
Aramaic (yat=hon Dan 3:12)
The etymology of the preposition 'et is *'itt, as shown in Biblical Hebrew
suffixed forms like 'itti, 'itt:ka and so on, and Akkadian itti (and Old
Canaanite/Amarna). It also existed already in Old
Phoenician, written 't (like the object marker)

All the best
Reinhard G.Lehmann

********************************************************
Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann
Forschungsstelle fuer Althebraeische Sprache
Johannes-Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz
D - 55099 Mainz
tel: (+49) 6131 - 39 23284
mailto:lehmann AT mail.uni-mainz.de
http home: www.uni-mainz.de/~lehmann/
look at: http://www.uni-mainz.de/~lehmann/link.html
look at: http://www.uni-mainz.de/~lehmann/KUSATU-dframe.html
********************************************************






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page