pere, randall, A. leafing through Psalms i found several similar cases. i suspect the omission of "that" was restricted to several well defined poetic patterns, based on known precedents. of these i found three:
* 2 very short words (noun+verb): 51:10, 56:10, 32:8, 24:1, 9:16 (twice), 109:19 (twice). see Lament 1:21, 3:25, 3:57, 4:17 * "Here/blessed is tha man (who)..... : 52:9, 32:2, 84:6, 84:13. maybe we see a sad echo of this in Lament. 3:1. * parabola: like an animal (which).....: 42:2, 32:9 (twice) ------------------ B. i suspect that omission of "asher" is connected somehow to transition from "asher" to the alternative "she". for example, ecclesiastes uses both "asher" and "she", and avoids omission of "asher" (except for 8:15, 8:29 where the use is different than in lamentations or psalms). nir cohen >>>> De: Pere Porta <[email protected]> Para: b-hebrew <[email protected]> Data: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 07:31:47 +0200 Assunto: [b-hebrew] Asher in Ps 51:10? Dear listers, In Ps 51.10 ---------> must we understand the pronoun "asher" as having been (deliberately or not) forgotten/omitted before the last word "dikita"? Or maybe not? Namely, is there a good reason for the lacking of "asher"? Pere Porta --------- >>>>> De: Randall Buth <[email protected]> Para: Hebrew <[email protected]> Data: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:00:52 +0300 Assunto: [b-hebrew] Asher in Ps 51:10? There are a couple of 'reasons' for not using asher in the phrase tagelna `atsamot dikita "may 'bones you crushed' rejoice" 1. there is a tendency for indefinite and less-definite nouns not to use an 'asher' in their linking, the more so in poetry. 2. Probably more importantly here, the metre is tight without 'asher'. 51:9-10 form a little subsection of the poem and each line is a 3-3 word stress. In other words "it sounded better" without asher. blessings Randall Buth _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
