Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Pere:

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:08 AM, <pporta AT oham.net> wrote:

> >> Are they necessarily construct? Or are they verb subject object
> phrases?
> > If they are verb subject object phrases, then this verse has all four
> > phrases with the same grammatical structure.
>
> ___________
>
> They are necessarily construct. So I think. "Gulat" is clearly a construct
> (see the absolute in Zec 4:3). And "Hebel" is construct too. Look at the
> A.
> section in  www.oham.net/out/N-t/N-t081.html


The reason I asked is because a feminine noun ending in a tau can be
absolute. We kid ourselves to think we know Biblical Hebrew well enough to
say with absolute certainty that GLT and XBL are construct. While it is
normal that a noun followed by an adjective or noun normally is in
construct, it is not always so. So we need to leave that door open a crack,
especially in poetry.

> <http://www.oham.net/out/N-t/N-t081.html>
>
> Furthermore remark that the noun which comes some words after "kad" has
> article (ha-galgal)...


Or we could turn the question around, why is it HGLGL instead of GLGL?

>
> That is why I think that "ha-kad" would be better. And I do not intend, by
> no means, to propose a changing of the text: the text must remain as it
> is.
> But cientific discussion is always enlightening, so I feel.
>
> Heartly,
>
> Pere
> Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain)
>
> Remove the points, and the verse can be read as, "Until which that which
ties up does not remove the silver, nor that which rolls move the gold, nor
a storage jar looked to upon stores and the round object (a body is a round
object that can be rolled, especially if wrapped in grave cloths) moved unto
the dug out pit." It probably could be translated more smoothly, but you get
the picture, I hope.
Karl W. Randolph.