Dear Peter,Well, let's see what BDB actually says: "A *sign of relation*, bringing the clause introduced by it into relation with an antecedent clause. As a rule ):A$ER is a mere *connecting link*, and requires to be supplemented (see the grammars) by a pron. affix, or other word, such as $FM, defining the nature of the relation more precisely". In other words, BDB explicitly avoids calling it a pronoun. As for DBH, it looks as if their compilers are trying to force Hebrew into an Indo-European mode.
Well, I don't agree that )$R can represent an antecedent at all, singular or plural, in the sense you meant. At least, this is unproven if the example put forward, Ezekiel 23:28, is anything like the best example. And this is what the original discussion was about. You can't argue ")$R can represent either a singular or plural antecedent, therefore )$R can represent an antecedent". You need to come up with examples where )$R unambiguously represents an antecedent, i.e. where it fills a noun slot in the main clause. This is necessary to refute my theory that )$R is simply a conjunction i.e. it does not fill a noun slot in either main or subordinate clause.
HH: I'm not following you. There is an entire section of examples in BDB under numbers 1-7. Conjunction comes with number 8. In the Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, see the first meaning given, pages 419-20: "as a pronoun introducing relative clause, which, that, who(m)." They have other sections with other similar functions. I am so familiar with this usage. It's in all the grammars I've ever seen (e.g., GKC #36; WOC #19.3) and is just basic Hebrew knowledge.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.