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

On 26 June, Marcus Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Philip Newton wrote:
< snip some very interesting examples>

> Even Biblical and Samaritan Hebrew did this kind of thing. I can't really
> send the proper transliteration via email (at least not if I want people
> to be able to read it), but here is one example from Biblical Hebrew.
> 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.
    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.

Reply