Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Any discussion of this kind needs to be grounded in some kind of linguistic
apparatus. Let's abandon the terms construct and apposition for now and
apply a process of generalisation to the data. In the data we see many
occurences of two nouns next to each other. The context shows that there
are, at least, two clear functional groups. By far the largest functional
group is that group of two nouns side by side which functionally speaking
have a genitival relationship. Let's label this as group 1.

Then there is a group of 2 nouns together with no genitival relationship
where the function of the second noun is to supply further information. So
far we have only managed to show one example Ex 3 of such a phenomenon. In
any case let us call this group  2.

Analysing group 1 we find a common pattern of morphological changes to the
first noun in the genitival phrase to be indicative of the genitival
relationship. We have found a way of disambiguating group 1 and group 2. Let
us call this subset group 1a (what you call construct). The rest of group 1
let us call group 1b. Group 1b and group 2 are syntactically and
morpholgically identical however context pretty much always does the job for
us and we are in no need of morphological markers.

Now where we seem to be differing is that you limit your classification of
construct to group 1a because you use a precise morphological description of
group 1a. However, a vast number of group 1a phrases are also
morphologically and syntactically identical to group 2 equivalent phrases.
You therefore, as I do, use function to make the differentiation as it is to
you more valuable in these cases a marker of the construct than is the
morphology. In fact, I go further and classify the group by function. The
most useful rule of thumb is if you see two nouns side by side behaving like
a construct then it's a construct.

Calling it apposition because of splitting hairs over morphological details
just doesn't bring anything of value to the analysis. It's function is that
of a construct not that of providing additional information. Why cause
confusion by giving it a different label. In fact, I would go further to
hypothesise that the Hebrews applied morphological changes in construct
phrases as and when they could be bothered. This is what the majority of the
data suggests. A bit like an English speaker who produces 'I am' or 'I'm'
interchangeably whenever they feel like it.

In conclusion, when a speaker speaks they are expressing functions not
forms. Forms are used to express the function. Sometimes they used
morphological changes to express the function. And sometimes they couldn't
be bothered. However, context makes the function clear in any case and so
their laziness can be understood. A bit like the evolution of English
really. It's nice to have verb conjugations and case endings for nouns but
if the context clears up the function then why bother with the morphological
details. Thou knowest and you know are functionally the same yet
morphologically different.

James Christian

On 7 May 2010 02:28, Donald Vance <donaldrvance AT mac.com> wrote:

> You're confusing categories. Genitive and construct are not identical.
> A noun in the construct state juxtaposed to another noun is one way to
> express the genitive relationship, but not the only way (noun + prep.
> "le" + noun, for example). Morphology is precisely the difference and
> morphology matters. The authors put some nouns in the construct state
> which usually has a different morphology than does the absolute or
> status pronominalis. Other nouns they set side by side with no change
> in morphology, which we call apposition. I'm not making assumptions;
> I'm accounting for the data. I don't know how to make this any
> clearer. Ephah is absolute and ephat is construct. They are different
> forms morphologically. I stated explicitly that the appositional
> phrase is
> genitival (or the functional equivalent), but that does not make it
> construct. Further, not all appositional phrases are genitival (the
> father-in-law example). "Construct," "genitive," and "apposition" may
> be modern grammatical terms, but they describe genuine phenomena
> observable in the text.
> Your English example of Fish doesn't work either. It follows the rules
> (whatever they may be), just not the rule of "s". To repeat, the rules
> are observations, not legislation.
>
> To sum up, "construct" is a descriptor used to designate the genitive
> relationship of two or more nouns where these nouns are treated as a
> single accentual unit which, in turn, usually affects the morphology.
> You keep using construct and genitive as synonyms and they are not.
> Genitive is a broader term than is construct. You may choose to use
> the terms differently, but to do so means that you will continue to be
> misunderstood and that you will continue to have conversations like
> this one.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Donald R. Vance
> donaldrvance AT mac.com
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Donald R. Vance
> donaldrvance AT mac.com
>
> On May 6, 2010, at 1:01 PM, James Christian
> <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes. I agree that speakers internalised. But the question is what
> > exactly did they internalise. You seem to be making an assumption
> > that they internalised apposition and construct in the same way with
> > the same criteria as you do. Just what linguistic tools exactly are
> > you basing this assumption on.
> >
> > The example you gave of a ephah of Barley, to me, seems to be a
> > clear construct. You conclude that it isn't based on morphological
> > details. I conclude that it is based on its function which from the
> > context is very clearly genitival.
> >
> > The example you gave of Jethro his father in law yes I agree is
> > clearly not genitival. I would not analyse this as construct. But
> > there are clearly instances where it is quite possible that for
> > whatever reason the Hebrews did not follow your formalism of
> > construct. The example you gave of an ephah of  barley illustrates
> > the point adequately.
> >
> > Let's look at English. A purely morphological analysis of English
> > says that a final s on a noun is needed to form a plural. But then
> > we get plurals like fish that don't seem to obey the rules.
> >
> > In the phrase we were discussing it is the context that clearly
> > illuminates the genitival function of the phrase as does the context
> > in your ephah of barley example.
> >
> > It was at university that my professor, Dr Davila, told me that the
> > best rule of thumb for constructs is two nouns next to each other.
> > I've found the most useful rule of thumb. Better than the precise
> > morphological system that is governing your classification which
> > seems to be preventing you from seeing that ephah of barley is quite
> > clearly a construct form that doesn't obey your morphological
> > expectations.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On 6 May 2010 20:14, Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. <donaldrvance AT mac.com>
> > wrote:
> > Of course they did. Just like any speaker of any language
> > internalizes their rules. They may not have been able to articulate
> > it, but they would be aware that "we just don't say it that way."
> > Otherwise communication would be impossible as everyone would be
> > doing whatever they like. Rules as formulated in grammars are merely
> > the systematization of what we observe in the language. For example,
> > Proper Names in Hebrew never take pronominal suffixes as do common
> > nouns. Clearly the speakers of Classical Hebrew were making a
> > distinction between the two, in use if not conceptually. In the same
> > way, we don't seem to find PNs in construct (though see my earlier
> > post on Ur of the Chaldeans which may prove me wrong here).
> > Appositional phrases are not genitival. "The car, the red one" is an
> > appositional phrase that is not genitival. Appositional phrases can
> > approach the genitive relationship as "Bethlehem, Judah" does since
> > this is functionally the same as "Bethlehem of Judah." We find, for
> > example, in Ruth 2:17 ‏כְּאֵיפָה שְׂעֹרִים
> > ke'epha se'orim "about an ephah, barley" that is "about an ephah of
> > barley" yet ephah is clearly NOT in the construct as it has the abso
> > lute feminine ending (the construct would be אֵיפַת, "ephat").
> > There are no textual variants for this phrase, implying, it seems to
> >  me, that the construction was not particularly hard to understand o
> > r unusual. Why the appositional phrase instead of the construct? Who
> >  knows? I suppose there is some nuance that is lost. But other appos
> > itional phrases are not genitival, for example, Ex 3:1,
> > ‏יִתְרוֹ חֹתְנוֹ yitrô hotenô "Jethro, his father
> > in law." This is not genitival. Waltke and O'Connor devote chapter 1
> > 2 to appositional phrases. This is not getting "bogged down" but unp
> > acking what the text says.
> >
> >
> > Donald R. Vance, Ph.D.
> > Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
> > Oral Roberts University
> > dvance AT oru.edu
> > donaldrvance AT mac.com
> >
> >
> > On May 6, 2010, at 2:43 AM, James Christian wrote:
> >
> > I really don't think your average Hebrew writing possibly 3,000
> > years ago had a grammatical notion of different rules for proper
> > nouns and common nouns. I really also don't think he had a
> > grammatical notion of construct and apposition quite as rigid as
> > your modernised and highly theoretical linguistics based approach has.
> >
> > Languages disregard high level generalisations at will. That is why
> > it more useful a guide to use a rule of thumb such as two nouns next
> > to each other rather than getting bogged down with so called 'rules'
> > about the construct form. What you are calling apposition just looks
> > like a construct to me that doesn't obey your expected rule system
> > of constructs. It has the same  linguistic function and the exact
> > same meaning.
> >
> > In fact, I challenge you find and show us a single phrase you
> > analyse as apposition which has an unambiguously significantly
> > different meaning to its construct counterpart. I'm sure you will
> > agree that there are none.
> >
> > Also, your criticism of Karl's method of not using the vowels is
> > completely unwarranted. They are an addition to the text and
> > therefore a potential corruption of it. Karl's method is only to be
> > commended and, in fact, the Hebrews read the text in this way for
> > thousands of years before the Massoretes made this change. It is
> > only by reading the text in this way that you are able to engage
> > your instincts in matters of logical disambiguation decisions. If
> > you rely on the vowel pointing then you rely on many of these
> > decisions having been made for you. Not an entirely scholarly
> > approach. This is not to say that Karl's decisions are necessarily
> > superior but at least he's made the effort of training his own
> > instincts and this is only to be commended. Were I to run a Hebrew
> > course I would teach students from the word go to read the text
> > unpointed.
> >
> > James Christian
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>