Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

Lisbeth,

You are absolutely right (probably a common trait with the Frieds).  
All I am saying is that one may not say "hayeled hatov" unless there  
is a consensus, a tacit agreement between speaker and listeners, that  
the boy is in fact good. On the other hand, "hayeled tov" is a  
statement of the speaker's own opinion about this quality of the boy,  
fanciful (and obtuse, I am afraid) grammatical terminology aside.  It  
appears to me ("I hear it") that Isaiah did not have the consensus of  
his listeners on the fact of the pregnancy, which is the reason for  
his use of HARAH and not HE-HARAH.

I must admit that in language class in school I was always half  
asleep. Deep in my little heart I knew that what the teacher is  
saying is plainly irrelevant.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Mar 6, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Lisbeth S. Fried wrote:

> Dear Isaac, et. al.
> The sign in Isaiah 7 has nothing to do with her becoming pregnant.  
> The sign
> is that before the child with whom she is now pregnant is able to  
> choose
> between the bad and the good (i.e., foods, what is edible and what  
> is not
> edible), i.e., by the time the kid is 2 or 3, the two kings of Aram  
> and
> Ephraim will be dead, and their lands deserted (that is, the people  
> exiled
> by the Assyrians).
>
> The grammar is ordinary Hebrew: hayeled hatov, the good boy  
> (attributive
> adjective)
> hayeled tov, the boy is good (predicate adjective)
> It's the first thing to learn when studying Hebrew.
> Liz Fried
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Isaac Fried [mailto:if AT math.bu.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 7:49 AM
> > To: Isaac Fried
> > Cc: Lisbeth S. Fried; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 7:14
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I am sorry, but as I pasted my post of March 6, 2007 7:35:10 AM EST
> > onto Mail, the line endings got mixed-up and my name was left out.
> >
> > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> > On Mar 6, 2007, at 7:35 AM, Isaac Fried wrote:
> >
> > > Lisbeth,
> > >
> > > You are right in saying that HARAH is a predicate adjective. I only
> > > wonder
> > > if it would not be simpler and clearer to use plain English and say
> > > that
> > > HARAH is a state the ALMAH is presently in. You are further right in
> > > saying
> > > that ha'alma hehara = the pregnant young woman. The prefixed HE (or
> > > HA) in
> > > HE-HARAH is the personal pronoun HI, English 'she', and it makes HE-
> > > HARAH a
> > > certainty. One does not add the definite article preposition and say
> > > HE-HARAH =
> > > she-pregnant, unless there is a consensus on the woman's pregnancy.
> > > But the
> > > prophet is not saying this; he is not saying HINEH HA-ALMA HA-HARAH,
> > > only
> > > HINEH HA-ALMA HARAH. Why not? Because, in my humble opinion, the
> > > ALMAH was
> > > not yet pregnant at the time Isaiah uttered these words. Otherwise,
> > > what is
> > > the significance of all this being an OT, 'a sign'? The prophet is
> > > using
> > > the present state HARAH to impart his conviction on the certainty  
> > > and
> > > imminence (not
> > > immanence) of the pregnancy destined to presently happen, as further
> > > indicated by HINEH.
> > >
> > > Surely what we now surmise was crystal clear (or possibly merely
> > > gossip) to the inhabitants of Jerusalem at the time of good king  
> > > AXAZ.
> > >
> > > On Mar 3, 2007, at 11:22 PM, Lisbeth S. Fried wrote:
> > >
> > > > LF: Harold is correct, it's an adjective, in this case a predicate
> > > > adjective.
> > > > When the noun has an article the adjective may or may not also have
> > > > the
> > > > article, and the sense changes accordingly.
> > > > ha'alma hara == the young woman is pregnant.
> > > > ha'alma hehara == the pregnant young woman.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Liz Fried