Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

On 10/23/04 10:47 AM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:

> ):A$ER is 
> not the same as the Greek, Latin or English relative.


On 10/23/04 11:42 AM, "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com> wrote:

> HH: I never said it was. I was the one who first mentioned, it seems
> weeks ago, that BDB calls )$R a connecting link or sign of relation.

That's right. We are continuing a discussion of an issue raised a while
back. My basic contention is that trying to force a "canonical" relative
clause pattern on Ezek 23:28 by supplying a dummy head (marked by %) for )$R
distorts the syntax of the text ...

Ezek. 23:28 ... byd-% )$r &n)t ...

... and violates what S.Dik** referred to as "Taking Languages Seriously"
with the consequence of obscuring the analysis. The "canonical" relative
clause pattern seems to be imported from Greek, Latin or English.

Thank you Harold and Peter. A very helpful discussion, after the initial fog
cleared away.


greetings,
Clay Bartholomew 
 
**The Theory of Functional Grammar, 2 Vols.  (ISBN:3110155397)
Dik, Simon C. MOUTON DE GRUYTER 1997, vol. 1 page 17.