Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

>
> (JS) So I have to ask what is the difference between "that" as a
> conjunction, "that" as a relative participle, and "that" as a particle
> preposition?
>
>

>  (PP)
>

I assume you are thinking of Hebrew (and not of English) at putting this
question.
First of all, is your concept of "conjunction", "relative" and "preposition"
clear, no matter which language we're dealing with?
The trouble in Hebrew is that it uses the same word, )$R, for the three (*).
But a given context gives its clues to see where it is a conjunction, where
it is a relative pronoun (and where it is a particle preposition).
(Remark: a relative *pronoun* and not a relative "participle")

(*) Strictly speaking I should have written "two", because )$R does not
exist as a particle preposition.

1. )$R as a conjunction ----------> Gen 29:8,5

2. )$R as a relative pronoun ----------> Gn 3:12,4; 20:13,12; Is 30:10,1 and
in many other places

3. )$R as a preposition ----------> It does not exist. Only in a few cases
--as in Ecc 12:9,2---  its shortened form "$" is prefixed to a word the same
way as prepositions "b" or "l". And this may cause the reader mistakes it
for a preposition.

Remark: noun "preposition" means that it comes *before* a given word, as in
"with John", "from Paris", "of you"... It has not to be understood as if it
meant it is prefixed or attached to the first letter of a word. "Pre" =
before, in front of; "position" = placement; thus "preposition" = placement
before (something).

A good  way -though not an infallible one-  to distinguish them is looking
at and comparing with the Greek and/or Latin versions.
For 1. usually "oti" is found in the Greek while for 2. we usually find "os"
(in the suitable declension form)...
Similarly in Latin: "quia" for the conjunction (it is an invariable word)
and "qui" (in the suitable declension form) for the relative pronoun.

Do you feel this explanation is clear and good enough?

Regards

Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)






> Brak wrote:
>
> Yes, I am talking about BW which is based on the WTS's e-text.
>
> How is the word "that" a conjunction?
>
> Every place in BW/WTS has it as Pr, except this one place.
> What makes it really weird is that the variation is only found in 1/2 of
> a k/q.
>
>
> B"H
> John Steven
>
>
> Pere Porta wrote:
>
>
> John,
> I assume you're speaking of BW, aren't you?
> Well, I think both are mistaken. Neither Pr (particle relative) nor Pp
> (particle preposition).
> I think the right answer is Pc = Particle conjunction.
> Why? Because it comes after the verb "know": to know /that/... As
> "that" is here a conjunction -and not a relative pronoun nor a
> preposition-  the same in Hebrew: CONJUNCTION. Thus Pc and not Pr nor Pp.
>
> Do you agree?
>
> Yours,
>
> Pere Porta
> (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com
> <mailto:Brak AT neo.rr.com> <Brak AT neo.rr.com>> wrote:
>
>     jb19:29,12 <$A/D.W.N>
>     The kevtib has the <$A> as Pr, but the qere as Pp. Why?
>     This is the only place that has this prefix listed as Pp, all the rest
>     has Pr.
>
>     B"H
>     John Steven
>     ______________________________
> _________________
>     b-hebrew mailing list
>     b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org> 
> <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>
>     http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>
>
> --
> Pere Porta
> "Ei nekrói ouk eguéirontai, fágomen kai píomen áurion gar
> apothnéskomen" (1Cor 15:32)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing 
> listb-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>


-- 
Pere Porta
"Ei nekrói ouk eguéirontai, fágomen kai píomen áurion gar apothnéskomen"
(1Cor 15:32)