Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

My Western logics, Jim?  Every and all girls in this world are the daughter
of some man, the same as every and all boys are the sons of a woman! There
is no exception here! No Western or Eastern logics, here!

In Gn 12:6 and 13:7, H-KN(NY is a generic to designate the entire group of
the Canaanites, the same as "the Perizzite" (in the same verse) means the
Perizzites, in general.

You know that in the first years of the 19 century, the French troops
-under Napoleon-  entered Spain and remained there for some years.

Now, In Spain, this is called "the war of the French" (*la guerra del
Francés*)
Remark: *Francés*, in singular.
Which, of course, means "the war against the Frenchs" (Frenchs is the plural
of French, here).
A singular is used to mean a plural.

Hope this helps.

The presence or absence of the article behaves as usual: it depends on
whether one wants to determine the word or not.

In Gn 38:2 the intention is to say that Shua's father was a Canaanite man (a
non Jewish fellow). No intention to determine.
In Gn 12,6 and 13:7 the intention is that "the Canaanites and the
Perizzites" were dwelling in the country... Determined, so article H.

Regards.

Pere Porta
2011/6/21 <jimstinehart AT aol.com>

> Pere Porta:
> 1.  You wrote:  “Remark: every girl in this world is a "daughter of a
> man"; there is no exception! That's why you assumption makes no sense (to my
> mind).”
> I see your Western logic.  But is that the way Hebrew grammar works?
> 2.  You wrote:  “[L]ook at every context where the word dealt with is
> inserted and it will tell you the answer.”
> The word KN(NY, or in one case the feminine form of that word, appears 9
> times in the Patriarchal narratives.  But in only two cases, at Genesis
> 34: 30 and here at Genesis 38: 2, is the definite article he/H absent.  Do
> you see the presence or absence of the definite article as being important?
> KN(NY at Genesis 34: 30 is a noun with a plural meaning, whereas at Genesis
> 38: 2, KN(NY is singular in meaning, and either is an adjective or, if an
> appositional phrase is seen, a noun.  But does the absence of the definite
> article preclude an analysis that KN(NY is a noun with a singular meaning,
> thereby requiring Genesis 38: 2 to be viewed as being an adjectival phrase?
> Or does it all depend on context?
> To phrase the question differently, we famously see H-KN(NY at both Genesis
> 12: 6 and 13: 7, being 2 of the 7 cases where the definite article is
> present.  Out of context, is there a very strong presumption that the
> meaning there is plural, or, rather, does the question of whether that
> phrase is singular or plural in meaning in those two verses rely almost
> entirely on the individual context, that is, on how one interprets those two
> verses overall?
> Jim
>



-- 
Pere Porta