Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Trevor & Julie Peterson" <06peterson AT cua.edu>]

Thomas wrote:

> All Hebrew
> grammars that I have read state that a noun in the construct state never
> takes the article,

This is true. I would think of it as purely a formal feature and keep it
separate from the question of whether a construct noun is understood to be
definite or not. It might help to think that there are three possible states
for a Hebrew noun--absolute, construct, and determined. The determined state
prefixes ha- and lengthens the following consonant where possible, and the
construct state sometimes adjusts the accent and voweling of the word. What
they signify is not necessarily directly related to anything we see in
English grammar. The construct state shows what we can generally call a
genitive relationship. A construct noun can't be in the determined state,
but it can still be semantically definite or indefinite. How we translate it
in English is yet another issue.

> and that its translation as definite or not is
> dependent upon the absolute noun to which it is joined in relationship.
> If the absolute noun has the article, then the construct must be
> translated as definite.

First, I don't think you've quite got the sense of the rule in the grammars.
As Ben has already pointed out, proper nouns can be definite without the
article (without being in the determined state, according to the terminology
that I'm using). Another major category is that of nouns with possessive
suffixes. You could say that this is a further possible state for nouns, or
it is often treated as a specialized form of construct. But they always
function as definite. So the rule you'll find in grammars relates not to
whether the governed noun has an article (is in the determined state) or not
but whether it is semantically definite--and there are major categories of
nouns that are semantically definite without showing it formally.

> Conversely, if the absolute is indefinite, the
> construct must also be definite.

Was this a mistake? Strictly speaking, you're talking about the inverse
here, rather than the converse. (Converse refers to a reversal of the terms;
inverse is a negation of them.) But I assume you mean "the construct must
also be indefinite." All that aside, I think the rule could stand to be
modified. There are really several instances where the construct noun
governing a definite noun is indefinite. One of the most common that I'm
aware of is to'avat ADONAY--an abomination to the LORD. It's used so often
throughout Deuteronomy that it's pretty obvious that there's more than one
abomination. No one thing mentioned is "the" abomination of the LORD,
although you might be inclined to translate it that way based on these
rules. I would note that this particular instance has a governed noun that
is inherently definite. It might be interesting to study things through and
see whether the rule of thumb applies more consistently where the determined
state is concerned. Perhaps the problem is that suffixed pronouns and proper
nouns force a definiteness that isn't necessarily meant for the head noun.
But at least these cases show that the writers had no problem using a
construct relationship when they meant the definiteness of the head noun
(the noun in construct) to depart from that of the governed noun.

>  This is basic Hebrew grammar. My
> question is, does this basic rule always apply?  Are there exceptions?

Needless to say by this point, I think there are. It might not be a bad rule
of thumb, but I wouldn't be surprised to find semantically indefinite nouns
in construct with definite nouns.

> English translators seem to pay little heed to the basic rule, often
> translating anarthrous construct relationships as being definite.

I suspect that this conclusion might undergo some revision now that you know
the rule is about definite governed nouns rather than governed nouns in the
determined state. So it's not just the presence of the article that makes
the difference. But another issue is that definiteness is not always used in
the same way across language boundaries. What one language considers
definite another language might not. That's part of the problem in
translation, and it only adds to the confusion if you haven't got things
nailed down in Hebrew.

Hopefully I haven't muddled things too badly for you :-)

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics