Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

On 10 Nov 2007 at 16:17, K Randolph wrote:

> Dave:
> 
> On 11/10/07, dwashbur AT nyx.net <dwashbur AT nyx.net> wrote:
> > Karl,
> >
> > On 10 Nov 2007 at 5:35, K Randolph wrote:
> >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> >
> > Dave Washburn
> > As a French hippie might say, "Je ne creuse pas!"
> 
> In the June discussion, we noted that Hebrew often uses the definite
> article where in English we use the indefinite. The example that I
> remember off the top of my head was that of "the" escapee from Sodom
> who went and reported to Abram that his nephew Lot was taken captive.
> While he was a particular one, he was not named or otherwise
> identified, so in English we would use an indefinite article.
> 
> It is the same syntactical pattern in this story, so we expect to find
> a definite article in connection with "place", so literally, "In the
> place..."

I thought that was more or less what I said.  The only thing I expanded on 
was the possibility 
that it's not a definite article, in order to deal with Jim's rejection of 
the Masoretic pointing.  I 
totally agree that we have a definite article here.  Are we talking right 
past each other 
again?  If we are, it's probably my fault...


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