Biblical Hebrew Forum

["C. Stirling Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>]

R. Holmstedt's paper on the Headlessness [Relative] and Extraposition* can
be read without knowing the details of minimalism. Looking the paper over
again, it seems that the central thesis: that causal, final, results ...
clauses introduced by )$r could also be understood as headless relative
clauses, some of which are separated from their fictitious antecedent "e" by
other constituents --  It seems that this proposal could be successfully
presented while eschewing the rebarbative obfuscations of minimalism.

Can we discuss Holmstedt's proposal and ignore the infelicities of the
analytical model? I think we can. We have already identified a sample text
where )$r does not introduce a headless relative clause.

> R. Holmstedt* argues that )$r does not introduce final/result clauses contra
> Waltke/O'Conner #38.3b.1. How would you read the function of )$r in:
> 
> Deut. 4:10  w)$m(M )t-dbry )$r ylmdwN lyr)h )ty

Holmstedt tells us this is one of about 10 exceptions. O.K. lets ignore
Deut. 4:10 and move on to one of his strong examples.

1Kings 3:19 wymt bN-h)$h hz)t lylh )$r $kbh (lyw

So what do you think? Is  )$r introducing a relative clause in 1Kings 3:19?

For Holmstedt's treatment see page 13 of his paper*.

greetings,
Clay Bartholomew 
 

* 2001. " Headlessness and Extraposition: Another Look at the   Syntax of
[asher]."  Journal   of Northwest Semitic Languages 27(1):1-16.

Holmstedt papers are available here:
 http://www.uwm.edu/%7Erdholmst/CV.htm