Hi Kirk, I appreciate your opinion on this, but I'm going to disagree (respectfully :) ). I don't think it's a dummy nominal, but really is serving as a relative pronoun. As you note, it is not inflected for number, gender, or state, but neither is אֲשֶׁר .
I've heard something like your position before, but I still think it works best, both for understanding the grammar and translating into English to regard it is an indeclinable relative pronoun. So I am agreeing here with IBHS 19.4 and, as I read it, Jouon-Muraoka 145. But perhaps you have some resources you could pass along to me on this topic as well. Blessings, Jerry Shepherd Taylor Seminary Edmonton, Alberta [email protected] > My opinion: a complete clause follows $E-; a relative always substitutes > for a clause. In this case it functions as the object of the preposition > K:-. That's its primary syntactic role. The clause doesn't need a subject, > since the fem sg inflection tells us what is being referred to. The > relative pronoun is really a misnomer: it's a "dummy nominal" that allows > clauses to be placed where a noun or adjective must be. That it isn't a > true pronoun is supported by the fact that the relative pronoun is not > inflected for number, gender or state. > > I don't object to the translation of "when". "So" would work as well IMO, > but the semantics is due to the nature of the lemma K-, and not in > combination with the relative pronoun. It has no semantic value in itself. > > As for the subject of T.IP.OWL, it is feminine, and the closest possible > antecedent that matches is `"T "time". "Evil time" coming suddenly upon men > is a nice parallel to the "birds caught in a snare": it's completely > unexpected and unplanned for. > > > > > > --
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
