Dear Clay,
Waltke/O'Connor 9.5.1 #6
Jer 1:2
dbr-yhwh
W/O call this a genitive of authorship.
My question. Does this genitive *mean* authorship? Should we let a student
think that this genitive *means* authorship?
HH: I said earlier that the various kinds of genitive uses can be debated, and the categorization of a particular instance to a specific category can be, too. That is one of the issues of interpretation: which of the possible uses of the genitive is appropriate in this case? But I think that example W/O 9.5.1 #7 shows that the construct genitive can indicate authorship. Perhaps the example in 9.5.1 #6 could be more of a possessive genitive or genitive of source, especially since we think of Jeremiah as the author of the Book of Jeremiah, not God. But Waltke and O'Connor by their definition more or less allow that: "that G wrote, spoke, or otherwise originated C."
This genitive has a syntax function. It binds two constituents together. The
semantic significance of the relationship between the two constituents is
not indicated in any way, shape or form by the genitive.
HH: Actually, it is in the sense that the genitive has a range of known functions. The nominative has a different range of functions. So one can expect the relationship between the two terms to reflect one of the known relationships expressed by the genitive. Peter advises that students read a great deal, and he is right, but that might be the answer to most grammatical questions. Until one knows the language extremely well, charts and lists and categories can all be of assistance.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.