Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JoeWallack AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14
  • Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:44:38 EDT


In a message dated 6/4/2007 5:22:29 AM Central Daylight Time, peter AT qaya.org
writes:

JW:
> As I indicated, Gesenius' earlier publication asserted that the Hebrew
> definite article did not always indicate the definite in Hebrew! He
subsequently
> corrected himself to assert that the Hebrew definite article always means
the
> definite in Hebrew. ...

Joe, do you have any evidence that Gesenius corrected himself, taken
from his own publications before his death in 1842? Or is your statement
more correctly that later editors of Gesenius corrected him or one
another? This makes a difference because you make this a personal matter
by saying "This was an embarrassing mistake for him".

--
Peter Kirk




JW:
I previously posted this here:

""Lehrgebäude" was Gesenius' previous grammatical work that he refers to as

"Lehrg.". On page 211 of Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old

Testament, based on Gesenius' later work, he discusses the letter, HEH:



"(2) the definite article,...similar laws are followed in Heb. as in Gr. and

in modern languages;...It will be well, however, to treat with care, a

subject which has been discussed of late...and on this, it will be well to
add

some original observations. The question has been raised...whether the
definite

article can ever be used for the indefinite. To this it must be replied, that


the definite article can never rightly be said to be used for the

indefinite;"



This indicates that Gesenius' thinking has changed on the subject and he is

now more inclined to see a straight-forward meaning to the Hebrew definite

article. What follows is where Gesenius now sees exceptions:



"however, there are many ideas which would be thought of and expressed as

definite by the Hebrews, which, from their being taken indefinitely in Greek,


German, French [or English], would be without the article;...The
peculiarities

in the Hebrew usage, in this matter, may be arranged in certain classes,

almost all of which, however, rest on the principle that the article is
prefixed

to known things."



Here Gesenius is now referring to idioms. Note that "[or English]" is the

Editor's contribution. Gesenius generally uses European languages for

comparison. Regarding:



"In such cases in English the indefinite article is mostly used."



above, is this the Editor's comment?



Gesenius goes on to categorize this exception as follows:



(a) to nouns which denote objects and classes of things which are known to

all.



(b) to abstract nouns



(c) after the article of comparison



(d) prefixed to collectives



Now there is no longer any category fitting:



"treats the definite article here as special



but as an example of a category of usage (section #126 q-r). They say:



"Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article to denote a single



person or thing (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore



not capable of being defined) as being present in the mind under given



circumstances."



Gesenius continues:



"After these remarks it is needless to state that there is no noun, which

has the article, which both cannot and even ought not to be taken
definitely."



So, per Gesenius here, if a Hebrew author used the definite article, the

author intended a definite subject although if an idiom is used, another

language may translate with the indefinite article if it falls within one of
the

above categories. And, as the Brits say. "the cruncher", Gesenius says:



"As to the instances which I formerly brought forward in contradiction to

this (Lehrg. p.655), they may be explained as follows"



So, in the words of Earnest in the classic The Importance of Being Earnest,

when it was revealed at the very end that his name really was Earnest, "As I

said.""

JW:
So it appears to me that Gesenius was publishing on the subject of Hebrew
grammar
before knowing the proper usage of the Hebrew Definite article. I think of
that as
"embarrassing". If you can think of a better adjective though I'm open to
suggestions.

Joseph






************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page