Nir Cohen: You wrote: “just for the argument, if indeed )DM (possibly +suffix) derives, somehow, from ADON, namely, agricultural land as property owned by a particular chief, the toponym problem might have a slightly different interpretation, and plural might indicate several chiefs, or several properties owned by one chief, as might be the case of XWWT Y)YR. continuing this logic, QB or HNQB might have been a chief or ethnic group, originally.” Based on my analysis, the two questions here, from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar, are as follows. (1) Is )DMY here the plural construct form of a masculine noun, )DM? (2) Is the underlying word here, )DM, a proper name, or rather primarily a common word? If )DMY is here a proper name in masculine construct plural form, which is how I analyze this geographical place name, then several things follow from that. There must be another place in the general vicinity that has a similar name, which here would obviously be )DMH, located only a few miles north of )DMY H-NQB. But only one of these two Adams/Adamahs is being referenced here, the one associated with NQB. Perhaps most importantly, the usual reason for using the construct plural form of a proper name in a place name in the first place is to focus attention on location, location, location. The only reason why the small place known as )DMY H-NQB was important was precisely because of its location: it was located at a “pipe”/socket/narrow passageway/NQB in eastern Lower Galilee, so that everyone traveling in that neck of the woods had to go right by this one place. If the foregoing analysis is right, then the precise meaning of )DM as a common word is not so terribly important. If )DM means “agricultural land”, as you suggest, rather than meaning “something red”, as others have suggested, that is almost beside the point. But please note that there is in fact no indication of “several properties owned by one chief”. No, only a single place is being referenced here, despite the plural construct form. The plural aspect of the plural construct form (i) lets us know that there are two places in the area having the same basic name, being variants of )DM, but then (ii) specifies, per the word/name that is not in construct form, that only one of these two places is being referenced here, namely the one that has a strategic location at a “pipe”/socket/narrow passageway/NQB. On this thread I plan to set forth a series of Biblical place names that feature a proper name in plural construct. You will see that the pattern is always the same. There’s always another place with a similar name in the area, but the word that is not in construct then specifies which of these two places is being referenced here, and the real point of using the construct plural format is precisely to emphasize that the one outstanding feature of the one place being referenced is its location, location, location. I think you will see that the pattern is quite clear, and quite predictable. In fact, the reason why a proper name in construct plural in a place name is fairly rare in the Bible is because only a limited number of places were important solely for their geographical location. Two places that qualify in that regard, being important solely for their geographical location, are the first two places I have set forth on this thread: )DMY H-NQB and R)MWT GL(D. My main point on this thread is to argue that when one sees a Biblical place name that features construct plural, one should not assume that a local topographical feature, in the plural, is being referenced. Rather, as with )DMY H-NQB and R)MWT GL(D, the purpose of the use of construct plural may rather be to focus attention on the fact that the one place being referenced has a strategic geographical location [which will be the case, however, if and only if the word/name in construct plural form is a proper name]. I see XWT Y)YR at Joshua 13: 30 differently. There, Numbers 32: 41 makes it quite clear that the common word for “towns”, in the plural, is the intended reference. There are not two places in the same general vicinity that each have XWT as a proper name. But by pointing out a series of examples like )DMY H-NQB and R)MWT GL(D, I hope to be able to show that when the word/name in construct plural is in fact a proper name [rather than primarily functioning as a common word, as in XWT Y)YR], then the focus of attention is on the strategic location of a single place, with the plural aspect of the construct plural form being limited to asserting that there are at least two places in the general vicinity with the same basic name. Jim Stinehart Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
