Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 7:14

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 7:14
  • Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:21:09 -0500

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







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page