HH: Sorry, but they do sound somewhat awkward to me because English does not usually use the generic definite article this way, preferring an indefinite article.
JW:
Here I think there is something of a Usage vs. Translation issue. If the emphasis is on the specific type of animal than "the" should be used for English. If the emphasis is on the indefinite animal within a type, than "a" should be used for English. Maybe the Hebrew is emphasizing the type here where English would not. If so, a more literal translation would use "the" and a "dynamic equivalent" translation would use "a", trying to present as if it was composed in English. It seems to me that the "proper" translation would be more dependent on the objective of the Translator (relative) rather than "right and wrong" (absolute).
JW: I accept that use of the Hebrew definite article may be used to emphasize a definite quality that would not be emphasized in English andhencethe indefinite in English would be appropriate.
HH: Right, but that is exactly what this category of usage in the grammars that you don't like does. It stresses that the person or thing is clear in the mind of the person who uses the article (i.e., there is a definite quality to the person or thing in the miond of the writer), but since his subject is otherwise unknown or unidentified, one can legitimately translate it with the indefinite article in English.
JW:
Whoa Nelliphim! The general example above of Hebrew having a different emphasis is an INTER language issue. Theoretically all Hebrew Bible speakers would be on the same page, so to speak. Your example in the preceding paragraph is an INTRA language issue. The subject is definite to the Hebrew Bible speaker and indefinite to the Hebrew Bible hearer. The default position is that what is definite to the Hebrew Bible speaker would be definite to the Hebrew Bible hearer. What specific examples of this do you claim (other than 7:14 of course)?
HH:
If one is honest with the context in Isaiah 7, there is no real reason to assume that there was any particular woman that the term in question pointed to. There is no other woman mentioned in the context except Isaiah's wife, who was not a virgin and seems to have had grown sons (so was not a young woman either). Good writers don't use totally obscure references, and I believe God inspired the biblical writers.
JW:
As far as using the observation that there is no other woman mentioned in the context, if your meaning above is that this by itself forces a conclusion of indefinite, that is proof-texting. If I, in return, pointed out one consideration as proof of definite I have Faith that you would likewise be unimpressed.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.