Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

I don't know how much you value the LXX or its translators but what its
worth here is their translation:

ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσιν *σηιρ

The translators evidently felt justified in translating with a plural of
mountains and seem to also have understood a construct form. The essence of
the construct state is that it expresses a genitive relationship between the
two nouns in the construct. That is to say it usually indicates some form of
possession with the first known being the object that is owned and the
second being the owner. This is basically the way I interpret this phrase
i.e. in the mountains of Seir.

If there is any other logical way of translating this phrase given the
context then please offer it so that we can consider it. As a good rule of
thumb if you see two nouns next to each other they are in construct.
Splitting hairs over issues of accent and the like just doesn't cut it.
There is no other way of interpretting this clause.

Karl has offered one possibility but this too involves a construct
understanding. If there is any logical way of understanding this phrase
other than a construct understanding then please offer it with a translation
that reflects. Otherwise, I will not be able to see any good reason for
abandoning a construct interpretation.

James Christian

On 4 May 2010 19:52, Donald Vance <donaldrvance AT mac.com> wrote:

> James,
> Whether it is a construct is nor a question of how one would translate it.
> The "status conctructus" is a state of a substantive wherein the accent is
> lost (moved to the last word of the chain for all practical purposes) and
> every syllable is treated as distant (vowels reduce to schwa if the syllable
> is open and stay short if the syllable is closed--long only if an
> unchangeably long) and a construct ending is applied (if m pl or f s). Since
> HRRM ends in either a m pl absolute ending or with a 3 m pl genitive suffix
> (making HRR status pronominalis--forgive the butchered Latin), it cannot be
> in the construct state by definition. As for translation, "mountains, Seir"
> if we go with a plural understanding, or "their mountain(s), Seir" if we go
> with a gen. sx.
>
> None of my comments should be interpreted as endorsing Jim's views. I
> simply objected to the condescending tone in your post and in those of Jim
> and Karl, for that matter. Is that really necessary?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Donald R. Vance
> donaldrvance AT mac.com
>
>
> On May 4, 2010, at 1:58 AM, James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>  So, how would you translate it then? I can see no other logical
>> interpretation.
>>
>> James Christian
>>
>> On 4 May 2010 09:17, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>  It’s a simple example of apposition, James. It’s not a construct. As Don
>>> pointed out, no pronominal suffix may attach to a word in construct. That
>>> fact alone tells us that בהררם is NOT in construct. It is in the status
>>> pronominalis, which is the state of a noun taking a pronominal suffix.
>>>
>>>
>>> GEORGE ATHAS
>>> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
>>> www.moore.edu.au
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> b-hebrew mailing list
>>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>