Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] "Species" of the Genitive Waltke/O'Connor

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] "Species" of the Genitive Waltke/O'Connor
  • Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:14:20 -0500

Dear Clay,

Waltke/O'Connor 9.5.1 #6

Jer 1:2
dbr-yhwh

W/O call this a genitive of authorship.

My question. Does this genitive *mean* authorship? Should we let a student
think that this genitive *means* authorship?

HH: I said earlier that the various kinds of genitive uses can be debated, and the categorization of a particular instance to a specific category can be, too. That is one of the issues of interpretation: which of the possible uses of the genitive is appropriate in this case? But I think that example W/O 9.5.1 #7 shows that the construct genitive can indicate authorship. Perhaps the example in 9.5.1 #6 could be more of a possessive genitive or genitive of source, especially since we think of Jeremiah as the author of the Book of Jeremiah, not God. But Waltke and O'Connor by their definition more or less allow that: "that G wrote, spoke, or otherwise originated C."

This genitive has a syntax function. It binds two constituents together. The
semantic significance of the relationship between the two constituents is
not indicated in any way, shape or form by the genitive.

HH: Actually, it is in the sense that the genitive has a range of known functions. The nominative has a different range of functions. So one can expect the relationship between the two terms to reflect one of the known relationships expressed by the genitive. Peter advises that students read a great deal, and he is right, but that might be the answer to most grammatical questions. Until one knows the language extremely well, charts and lists and categories can all be of assistance.

The statement: "This genitive *means* authorship" encourages the student to
think of the genitive as a language feature that carries semantic content.
This thinking will lead them to all sorts of wrong methods and conclusions.

HH: But Waltke and O'Connor do not really say "means." They say that the "noun-noun genitive phrase or construct chain is 'immensely versatile and hard-worked.'" They are not claiming that a particular phrase means something but that there are well-recognized kinds of relationships that the genitive indicates.

Grammarians of the traditional school seem to think this is ok because deep
down they really believe that the genitive is a language feature that
carries semantic content.

HH: It is a language feature that carries semantic content to some extent. The genitive is used to indicates different things, for the most part, than the accusative indicates. So if one has an accusative, he needs to consider the various kinds of relationship that an accusative is known to represent. The genitive has its own list. The two lists don't have that much overlap.

I am not convinced by the "patterns of usage" line of argument. When the
genitive binds two constituents together it opens of a nearly unlimited
range of possible semantic relationships. Breaking these down into neat,
tidy categories doesn't tell us anything about the function of the genitive.
Having a student memorize these categories while studying the SYNTAX of the
genitive is worse than dubious, it is counter productive ...

HH: My own experience tells me that patterns of usage are valuable. I have received help time and again when analyzing verses by looking at the interpretive possibilities for the particular structure. This often leads to an insight that I might not have reached on my own. The categories represent the observations of many scholars over a long period of time, and I know from experience that their findings are helpful.

HH: Your issue may concern how the species of genitive are used or taught, rather than their value in themselves. The teacher should communicate that the categories simply represent how readers of Hebrew have seen that the genitive functions. A particular genitive is likely to fall within the one of the recognized patterns of usage. But it should be intuitively obvious that the particular usage has to be a matter of interpretation, since formally many of the categories are alike.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page