Biblical Hebrew Forum

["B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>]

Hi Peter,

Your question is a good one, which might be germane to the midwives
discussion, but I don't know the answer yet for lack of examples.

Maybe we could look at 1Ki 14:21. _veshem 'immo na`amah ha`ammoniyt_

The mother is not first introduced in the indefinite ("_a_ mother") in
one clause before we are given her name in a second clause where she is
definite.  Rather, we
jump right to a definite reference to the mother ('immo) even though she
has never appeared in the narrative prior.  It makes common sense that
the narrator hardly had to say the Rehoboam _had a mother_ as a
separate proposition before he named her because our world knowledge
tells us that every man has a mother.  This relates to your question
because there are also certain court officials that we may assume a king
is about as likely to have as any man is to have a mother, like a
captain to his host or a butler.  How about midwives?  ;-)

Another example: 1Sa 14:50 _veshem 'eshet sha'ul 'axiyno`am bat
'axiyma`ats veshem sar tseba'ot 'abiyner_...

If we are a Bible-days audience, we *know* any king has a wife and a
captain.  Both are refered to in the definite in the same clause that
they are named.

Interestingly, neither of the above examples is actually a
counter-example to my rule
because in neither case do the named individuals become participants in
the subsequent episode.  The names of the individuals are information
off to the side of the main line of events.

On the other hand, watch what happens when a man is introduced and
subsequently becomes active in a little plot:

2Sa 17:25 va`amasa' ben 'iysh ushmo yitra' hayyisre'eliy

Yitra only participates in one act (He marries Abigail).  Yet the
narrator circumlocutes to stay within the rules of narration--one clause
introduces him with an indefinite and the next clause tells us his name.
 What I mean when I say the narrator circumlocutes is that he didn't
have to tell us Amasa was "a son of a man."

Shalom,
Bryan

Peter Kirk wrote:
> On 01/11/2005 22:18, B. M. Rocine wrote:
>
> > ...  The only possible counter example I know of is Exo 1:15.
> >
> > (a.) vayyo'mer melek mistrayim lamyalldot ha`ibriyyot
> > (b.) 'asher shem ha'axat...
> >
> > I wonder if the "rule" I have sketched here has any impact on whether 
> > we should read lamyalldot or limyalldot in v. 15.  I think it does by 
> > ruling out lamyalldot!
> >
> > I still have reservations, however, because even limyalldot is 
> > grammatically definite by virtue of its place in an alledged definite 
> > construct chain.  Hmmmmmmmmmm.
> >  
>
> But does your rule still apply when the new character is a definite 
> person, an individual holder of a specific office (or in this case a 
> pair of them)? I note for example that in Genesis 40:1 "the king of 
> Egypt" is introduced with with a definite construct chain (made definite 
> by the proper name at the end) rather than an indefinite one, as there 
> was only one king of Egypt here (as opposed to the rather odd 2 Kings 
> 7:6). Admittedly this doesn't have the "and the name of the..." phrase; 
> it is interesting that this phrase does not seem to be used of specific 
> kings etc but generally only of characters newly introduced in 
> indefinite ways.

--
B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13026
(W): 315.437.6744