...
Peter,
I am not sure we are talking about exactly the same thing.
Take a look at:
Ezek. 23:28 ky kh )mr )dny yhwh hnny ntnK byd )$r &n)t byd )$r-nq(h np$K mhM
The antecedent of )$r in the expression byd )$r &n)t is not explicit, it is
inferred or, if you prefer, it is exophoric rather than anaphoric. To supply
a place holder % to mark the position of this antecedent byd-% )$r &n)t
implies that there is something defective about the syntax, that it is
missing something. But the expression byd )$r &n)t is well formed. There is
nothing missing. A relative with an exophoric antecedent is perfectly
acceptable.
I would agree that semantically the exophoric antecedent is present in theWell, I think I would consider this a figure of speech. This is a well-formed sentence "... into the hand which hates you, into the hand which your NEPE$ was estranged(?) from (them)." But here the hand is a metonymy or synecdoche for the person who owns the hand. But there is no placeholder here.
text but syntactically it is not. So if we are talking syntax I would say
leave the place holder out. If you are talking semantics then the place
holder serves a purpose.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.