Re: THEORY: Case mismatches (was: Re: Viko Notes)

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Dan Sulani wrote:

> On 26 June, Marcus Smith wrote:
>
> > Uvo? ho?ari we ?eT haddov
> > came.3sg.masc the.lion and non-nom the.bear
> > `And there came a lion and a bear'
>
>     Do I understand correctly, that you are
> saying that |haddov| is not in the nominative case
> because it follows |?eT|, the direct-object marker?
>     I'm not an expert in Biblical Hebrew, and if the claim of
> case mismatch is based upon something else, then it's beyond
> my knowledge.
I am also very far from an expert on Biblical Hebrew. I have taken this
analysis of the facts from the literature on case and coordination. It
does seem to be true that the analysis of this as a difference in case is
based on the word _?eT_.

If I end up having to remove it from consideration, I won't be all that
upset. But even if this is not a case issue, there is also an agreement
issue. As I understand it, the verb in that passage is inflected for a
singular subject. If this example is coordination, as it appears to be on
the surface, then the resulting agreement is quite interesting. Not
unique: Arabic also has agreement with just the first conjunct of a
post-verbal coordinate subject. Plenty of other languages do too, though
not all with the same semantics.

>     But if the perception of mismatch is due to the |?eT|, then, I'm
> afraid I'll have to question the conclusion.
>     Although |?eT| is mainly used in Hebrew to signal a direct object,
> it has at least one other use. This is to specify inclusiveness.
> Today, it is used in names of incorporated firms in order to specify
> boundaries of responsibility. |Ari ?eT Dov| is a very plausable name
> for a legal or insurance firm in Israel.
> The |?eT| here signals that the firm is incorporated such that all legal
> liabilities range from Ari up to and including Dov.
>     The classical rabbinical commentaries on the verse quoted above
> (Samuel I, chapter 17, verse 34) all seem to see the |?eT| in this
> light. As I understand them, the verse might be better translated
> something like:
>
> "And there came [problems, threats ranging from] the lion
> even unto the bear".
>
> In other words, David is not saying that he overcame
> exactly two animals, but that he dealt successfully with all kinds
> of dangers,  ranging from those presented by lions all the way
> to those presented by bears.
>
>
>     Dan Sulani
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a
>
> A word is an awesome thing.
>