Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Ecclesiastes 3:11

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Martin Shields <enkidu AT bigpond.net.au>
  • To: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ecclesiastes 3:11
  • Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:45:25 +1100

Yitzhak,


This is often true, but is it always true? HALOT goes on to list examples of clauses with an antecedent referent but without any resumptive pronoun (e.g. Gen 2:8; Deut 1:39; Jud 21:5). It says, "so any word relating to a preceding noun may be omitted and the sense of the omitted element is inferred from the the context."

But you have such a word, whether you realize it or not. It is ?$r!

Exactly my point. I understood you to be saying that standard BH syntax required a resumptive pronoun, my claim was that this was unnecessary and that אשר alone could function referentially, as I think it does in Qoh 3:11. This seems to be the point made in HALOT, although it is expressed more clearly by Waltke & O'Connor.

Furthermore, while the reference to an antecedent can be omitted, where is it omitted when it is the object of a preposition.

Isa 47:12, for example, contains a preposition + relative with no resumptive pronoun and the antecedent to the relative is specified in the preceding clause.

I agree that bly is acting as a preposition, but then it must take an object... In your reading, it is just ?$r where ?$r is the reference to an antecedent. But where do you find that ?$r can reference the antecedent like this?

See above.

While ?$r can be properly translated by 'which' in many cases, this is only where 'which' introduces a subordinate clause. It does not translate 'which' when 'which' references just the antecedent. There may be border cases where it seems a reading says, for example, 'by which such and such', but the Hebrew phrase really reads 'by { which such and such }' whereby ?$r and the entire clause is the object of 'by'.

I'm afraid I'm having difficulty understanding you here. When you say "[i]t does not translate 'which' when 'which' references just the antecedent" are you referring to אשר with or without a preposition? We've already seen examples where אשר does refer to an antecedent.

I don't see how your second sentence above addresses the referent for the relative at all.

Furthermore, bly cannot take the object suffix forms of the 3rd person, which is why in that case bl(dy would have to be used.

Except that we've already established that the use of an object suffix is optional, so there is no such obstacle to the use of בלי. You need to demonstrate why the grammars are incorrect at this point and why the examples I cited from them (as well as others) are incorrectly understood. You may be correct, but as far as I can see you have not demonstrated the point, just asserted it.

This is why the form that properly references the antecedent is bl(dyw, even if bl(dyw is not attested by itself in BH. It is a reconstruction, but a very reasonable one.

If reason dictated the way language worked, we'd all be speaking Esperanto ;-).

Finally, ?$r is not always found immediately after its referent.

Which is why I wrote "ISTM that אשר is frequently found immediately after its referent." Frequently does not mean always.

Regards,

Martin Shields,
Sydney, Australia.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page