Biblical Hebrew Forum

["David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>]

Dear Clay,

Thanks for the conversation - this helps clarify my own thinking.

Personally, I don't like the resort to "pleonasm". I think it often avoids 
the issue and fails to give an account of a feature of the language. The 
words "I don't know" could often be substituted for the word "pleonastic".

As for your examples, note that they are verbless clauses. It has been 
popular in the past to regard this use of hw' as a copula. However, I think 
Zewi and Muraoka argue convincingly that this is not the case. (See Tamar 
Zewi, "Is there a Tripartite Nominal Sentence in Biblical Hebrew," JNSL 26/2 
[2000], 51-63; idem, "The Nominal Sentence in Biblical Hebrew," in Semitic 
and Cushitic Studies [Gideon Goldenberg, ed.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 
1994], 145-167; Takamitsu Muraoka, "The Tripartite Nominal Clause 
Revisited," in The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches 
[Cynthia L. Miller, ed.; LSAWS 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999], 187-213, 
esp. 198-201.) Consequently, these clauses are best viewed as having a 
detached or pendens phrase; and depending on whose theory you want to run 
with, the phrase is either topicalised, focused or contasted (alternatively 
kontrasted).

Your examples might then translate into Engish as:

"As for Esau, he is Edom" and "As for Yahweh, he is God".

What do you make of this?

Regards,

David.


> From: "C. Stirling Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>
> To: David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com>,<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Hebrew "Nominative"
> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:41:20 -0700
>
> David,
>
> Thanks for the substantive reply, a few comments ...
>
> On 9/27/04 6:13 PM, "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Your question relates to the analysis of BH as a head- or 
> dependent-marked
> > language. The problem is compounded because BH is a so-called pro-drop
> > language, ie independent pronouns are not obligatory as apposed to 
> English,
> > for example.
>
> What, therefore, does one say about "pleonastic" pronouns are they
> pleonastic?
>
> Gen. 36:8 ... (&w hw) )dwM
>
> 1Kings 18:39 ... yhwh hw) h)lhyM
>
> If we reduce these to English SVO propositions then the pronoun looks like
> it serves no syntactical purpose. I think calling these "pleonastic"
> probably reveals a weakness in the analysis/methodology.
>
> Mistah Kurtz--he dead.
>    (T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men from J.Conrad, Heart of Darkness)
>
>
>
> >Perhaps a better way forward than the "appositional" approach
> > is the one put forward by Matthew Anstey (pp.24-26):
> >
> > http://home.hum.uva.nl/fg/working_papers/WPFG77.pdf
> >
> > The position advanced here is that both the NP argument *and* the verbal
> > dependent-marking refer.
>
> To the same referent I assume. They are co-referential.
>
>
> >Have a read also of pp.226-232 of William Croft's,
> > Radical Construction Grammar.
> >
> > One of the benifits of the approach is that in the case of pronominal
> > reference, pronouns are then not so much "dropped" but "added".
>
> Yes, the notion of a "missing pronoun" sounds suspiciously like the
> theoretical tail wagging the textual dog.
>
> > Unfortunately, however, there is yet to be a serious study of the 
> syntax,
> > semantics, and pragmatics of independent personal pronouns in BH - which 
> is
> > why I have chosen it as the topic for my dissertation!
>
> It is not really unfortunate, it gave you a topic to write about ;-)
>
> Thanks again,
> Clay Bartholomew

_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:   
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail