Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

On 10/21/04 8:55 AM, "C. Stirling Bartholomew"
<jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net> wrote:

> Ezek. 23:28 ky kh )mr )dny yhwh hnny ntnK byd )$r &n)t byd )$r-nq(h np$K mhM
> 
> The antecedent of )$r in the expression byd )$r &n)t is not explicit, it is
> inferred or, if you prefer, it is exophoric rather than anaphoric. To 
> supply a
> place holder %  to mark the position of this antecedent byd-% )$r &n)t 
> implies
> that there is something defective about the syntax, that it is missing
> something. But the expression byd )$r &n)t is well formed. There is nothing
> missing. A relative with an exophoric antecedent is perfectly acceptable.
> 
> I would agree that semantically the exophoric antecedent is present in the
> text but syntactically it is not. So if we are talking syntax I would say
> leave the place holder out. If you are talking semantics then the place 
> holder
> serves a purpose.
> 
> Why belabor this? It calls attention to  the inferential nature of the
> construction. It points the exegete out side of the text to resolve the
> exophoric reference from the cognitive framework of the original target
> audience. 

Actually, in this example the antecedent(s) could be inferred from the
preceding portion of the chapter 23. So this isn't a perfect example of an
exophoric antecedent.

greetings,
Clay Bartholomew