Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Rule of thumb, two nouns together are in the construct expressing a genitive
relationship. You can split hairs if you like but languages flagrantly
disregard the high level generalisations we like to make about them at will.
Bottom line. This is a genitive relationship. Call it construct. Call it
apposition. It really doesn't make a difference to me. Whatever makes you
feel happy. What does make a difference to me and I feel has a bearing on
the discussion is the intended meaning conveyed. Both the translators of the
LXX and the Vulgate felt this was a plural with a genitive relationship. I
agree. Neither of them analysed a personal pronoun. I also agree.

On 5 May 2010 18:48, Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. <donaldrvance AT mac.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>