Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

James Christian

On 6 May 2010 01:05, James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>>
>>
>