Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

pere, randall,

A. leafing through Psalms i found several similar cases. i suspect the
omission of "that" was restricted to several well defined poetic patterns,
based on known precedents. of these i found three:

* 2 very short words (noun+verb): 51:10, 56:10, 32:8, 24:1, 9:16 (twice),
109:19 (twice). see Lament 1:21, 3:25, 3:57, 4:17

* "Here/blessed is tha man (who)..... : 52:9, 32:2, 84:6, 84:13.
maybe we see a sad echo of this in Lament. 3:1.

* parabola: like an animal (which).....: 42:2, 32:9 (twice)

------------------

B. i suspect that omission of "asher" is connected somehow to transition 
from "asher" to the alternative "she". for example, ecclesiastes uses 
both "asher" and "she", and avoids omission of "asher" (except for 8:15, 
8:29 where the use is different than in lamentations or psalms). 

nir cohen

>>>> De: Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
Para: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Data: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 07:31:47 +0200
Assunto: [b-hebrew] Asher in Ps 51:10?
Dear listers,
In Ps 51.10 ---------> must we understand the pronoun "asher" as having been
(deliberately or not) forgotten/omitted before the last word "dikita"?
Or maybe not?  Namely, is there a good reason for the lacking of "asher"?
Pere Porta

---------

>>>>> De: Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>
Para: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Data: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:00:52 +0300
Assunto: [b-hebrew] Asher in Ps 51:10?
There are a couple of 'reasons' for not using asher in the phrase
tagelna `atsamot dikita  "may 'bones you crushed' rejoice"

1. there is a tendency for indefinite and less-definite nouns not to use
an 'asher' in their linking, the more so in poetry.
2. Probably more importantly here, the metre is tight without 'asher'.
51:9-10 form a little subsection of the poem and each line is a 3-3 word
stress. In other words "it sounded better" without asher.

blessings
Randall Buth