Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 21/10/2004 16:55, C. Stirling Bartholomew wrote:

> ...
>
> Peter, 
>
> I am not sure we are talking about exactly the same thing.
>
> Take a look at: 
>
> 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. 
>  

OK, this is syntactically normal, just semantically anomalous.

> 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.
>
>  
Well, I think I would consider this a figure of speech. This is a 
well-formed sentence "... into the hand which hates you, into the hand 
which your NEPE$ was estranged(?) from (them)." But here the hand is a 
metonymy or synecdoche for the person who owns the hand. But there is no 
placeholder here.

Note the "from them" which is the resumptive pronoun I was referring to.

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