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: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] "Species" of the Genitive Waltke/O'Connor
  • Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:02:42 +0100

On 28/08/2004 18:14, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:

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.


This issue sounds more like one of reference than of meaning. If I write "Harold posted this, and I replied to him", the word "him" does not *mean* Harold but it *refers* to Harold, and that reference is determined by the context. "Him" can refer to many entities (male people and animals etc) but not to others (females, inanimate objects etc) which must be referred to by a different form. Similarly, the alleged "genitive of authorship" does not *mean* authorship, but this genitive does appear to *refer* to authorship in this context. Similarly, genitives can refer to many functions, but not to others which are referred to by other grammatical forms.

But then perhaps *refer* is not quite the right word for semantic functions.

By the way, I would advise extensive reading as the best way to learn most grammar, beyond the very basic morphology which must be learned to make any sense of any connected text. But even the basic morphology should be learned from short sentences rather than paradigms.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page