Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Donald R. Vance, Ph.D." <donaldrvance AT mac.com>]

Jim,
OK, let's try this again. It is impossible for bhrrm to be a  
construct. Period. The construct state is a different form of the  
noun. It is actually spelled differently as I explained in my earlier  
post. A noun is NOT in construct because one wants to translate it in  
a genitive relationship. As for "bhrrm", the form is not dubious at  
all. It is a noun, masculine, singular, status pron. of "har" from a  
root hrr with a 3, m, pl, gen. sx.  and the prep. "be" to be  
translated “in their mountain (hill, hill country, whatever)." This  
form with the two reshes is found two other times (Ps 30:8 and Jer  
17:3). I was not disputing the translation as "hill country" or some  
such. That is fine. The noun har means "hill, hill country, mountain."  
The phrase is in apposition to the GN "Seir." This is a common  
grammatical construction. The phrase then is translated "the Horites  
(or Hurrians) in their hill country, Seir."

James,
As for Speiser's comments, he is emending the text because he sees a  
difficulty in the text. He is actually changing the text. His notes  
indicates that he understands the MT as "in their hill country, Seir,"  
but he finds the versions more readable. The emendation is unnecessary  
since the apposition relationship here is the equivalent of a genitive  
relationship. The construct is not the only way to express a genitive  
relationship. The versions are expressing the genitive relationship.

Karl,
Proper Names do NOT occur in construct. Beth-Lehem Ephratha is NOT a  
construct relation ship. It is an appositional phrase. How do I know  
this? There is no reduction as occurs in nouns in the construct  
relationship. Further, there are no examples of PNs in construct with  
the resulting vowel reduction.




On May 4, 2010, at 4:34 PM, James Christian wrote:

> You misrepresented me by saying I deny it to be a plural. I accept  
> this as a
> possibility and in fact have offered the LXX translation as  
> corroborative
> line of evidence for this traditional understanding. However, where  
> I have
> to pull you up is in the way you call George and Don's an 'erudite
> analysis'. What analysis? All they have done is raised objections to a
> construct interpretation. They are both still to date to offer a  
> sensible
> translation which demonstrates an alternative understanding. There  
> is no
> other logical way of understanding this phrase in this context than  
> that of
> a construct relationship. If you believe there is then please offer a
> concrete translation that illustrates this alternative  
> interpretation. In
> you can't then the silence speaks for itself.
>
> James Christian


> On May 4, 2010, at 3:33 PM, JimStinehart AT aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> Dear Professor Vance:
>
> You wrote:  “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.”
>
> Could you please explain the following translation and comment by  
> E.A. Speiser in “The Anchor Bible Genesis”?
>
> “…in the* hill country of Seir.
> *So most versions;  MT ‘their’.”

On May 4, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Karl Randolph wrote:
> Karl wrote:
> But if it is a name, then it is possible to have its form in the  
> construct. In fact, because it is in the construct, that is one of  
> the reasons I claim that it
> is a name and not a noun followed by a suffix.
>
> If a name, it can be a combination of two or more words. One  
> possibility is HR RM (high mountain) of the land of Seir. Another  
> possibility is that it is not a Semitic name.
>
> There are other names used in the construct, i.e. a site name  
> followed by a district name. Examples include Bethlehem Ephrata to  
> distinguish it from other places named Bethlehem, and Qadesh Barnea  
> to distinguish it from two other places named Qadesh mentioned in  
> Tanakh. So here I see two proper nouns in construct, one a city  
> name, one a district name.