Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

Howdy  Karl,

On 9 Nov 2007 at 15:19, K Randolph wrote:

> Dave:
> 
> On 11/9/07, dwashbur AT nyx.net <dwashbur AT nyx.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 9 Nov 2007 at 14:51, JimStinehart AT aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > Could you please explain to me the basis for the following key 
> > > contention  of yours?
> > > "[T]he grammar of the clause supports the translation 'a certain  
> > > place'...." I am obviously missing something here.  Are we looking at 
> > > the same Hebrew letters?  Or am I missing the  significance of one 
> > > Hebrew letter in the text? Why "a certain place", instead of "a  place"?
> >
> > Because this is how biblical Hebrew indicated such a thing.  See under 
> > Speiser below.
> >
> > No, the patach under the B indicates the assimilated definite article.  I 
> > didn't go there because you've already said you reject the pointing.  At 
> > the same time, you must have some kind of pronunciation pattern, so 
> > whether it's the Masoretic or something else is pretty much academic.  
> > Karl reads unpointed text as well, but I suspect he probably reads a 
> > definite article here, as well.  He can correct me on that if I'm wrong, 
> > because I'm essentially guessing :-)  It's the difference between B'MAQOM 
> > and BAMAQOM, whether you actually notate it or not.  Basically, the 
> > literary meaning is "THE place [that we're going to talk about in this 
> > part of the story].  It's better English idiom, and hence more readable 
> > for the average English reader, to say "a certain place."
> >
> Here is a case where Biblical Hebrew uses a definite article and good
> English an indefinite one. As for the meaning, the context indicates
> the following interpretation:

So I was correct that you read a definite article here?
 
> > OTOH, if you eliminate the definite article, you have "a place [which is 
> > where this story happens], which again amounts to "a certain place" in 
> > good English.
> 
> Right.
> 
> > ....  The difference is one of focus: with the article, the place is 
> > something prominent, as in this case; without the article, it's just a 
> > place for the prominent events to take place.  Does that clear it up?
> >
> Here I think you overemphasize the importance of the definite article.
> I think its position here is more to fulfill the expectations of
> grammar than to change meaning.

Not sure I follow.  Could you elaborate a little?

> > Dave Washburn
> 
> As for the grammatical structure, we expect to see a definite article,
> in translation into English, an indefinite article, from context this
> is not jes' enny ole place, but where something important happens.
> It's the important place, but Jacob didn't know it yet.
> 
> You know, I'm larnin' a lot o' Hebrew from these discussions.

Me too, also :-)

Dave Washburn
As a French hippie might say, "Je ne creuse pas!"