If you don't mind i'd like to give you some tips on how to be clearer.
I'm not saying you are unclear.. like sometimes I understand what you're saying, i'm just saying you could make it easier in some ways..
Perhaps sometimes your writing is a bit like Rashi, maybe that's how you spotted that subtlety with the kamatz in what Rashi said even when Rashi hadn't mentioned the kamatz. You may have a mind similar to his. There are commentaries on Rashi that probably don't mention that.
ducky wrote:So the fact that this word doesn't come with a definite article (except for Nehemiah and its reason) clears the fact that also in Gen. it doesn't come with a definite article.
And since it doesn't come with a definite article, it can't stand alone.
But it is must be stuck to something else.
If someone wants to read it as there is some missing word (as "time" or "creation" for example) he can do that.
But according to what it is written, it is connected to the next word.
because if it is without a definite article, it would be like:
"In a beginning, God created this and that"
But we can't read it that way.
Perhaps you would write even more clearly if rather than say "if a word has a definite article", (as then it's not clear - without perhaps reading further - whether you mean it has a definite article written in, or whether you mean it doesn't have a definite article written in but is read with the definite article)
if you used phrases like "written with the definite article" and "read with the definite article", it'd be clearer.
Just saying "with the definite article" is a bit ambiguous 'cos it could mean either of those and those are different things.
If you are comfortable using words like implied/implicit, and explicit, then even better, one could say "a word has an implied/implicit definite article"(that means a word has no definite article written in, but is read with a definite article i.e. there is a definite article but it's just not written in) vs "a word has an explicit definite article"(it has the definite article written in so clearly it has a definite article).
When you say
ducky wrote:So the fact that this word doesn't come with a definite article (except for Nehemiah and its reason) clears the fact that also in Gen. it doesn't come with a definite article.
It's a bit clearer to insert the word in.. especially in the nehemia case..
ducky wrote:So the fact that this word(Reishit) doesn't come with a definite article (except for Nehemiah - LaReishit - and its reason) clears the fact that also in Gen(BeReishit). it doesn't come with a definite article.
The Nehemia case(LaReishit/For the first-fruits ) reason for Reishit having a definite article doesn't tell us anything about the Gen 1:1 case, because in the Nehemia case the definite article is explicit(LaReishit). So looking at the reason why there is an explicit definite article in the Nehemia case is interesting but doesn't tell us anything about the Gen 1:1 case so it's not even relevant(to how Gen 1:1 is read), as any exception.
(Though it is relevant as an interesting case, of Reishit with explicit definite article).
And notice you say "this word(Reishit) doesn't come with a definite article except for nehemia(LaReishit). The thing is that the idea that Reishit in Gen 1:1 doesn't come with the definite article, means you are now using the phrase "come with a definite article" to mean an explicit one. What you mean is it doesn't have one written in, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have one. So for a word, saying whether you mean written or read, or whether you mean An explicit definite article, or An implicit definite article, or An indefinite article, is much clearer.
and when you say something unclear and add a negation, it is even more unclear.. like "doesn't come with a definite article"..
If you say "comes with an indefinite article", there's no ambiguity.
When you say
ducky wrote:
if it is without a definite article, it would be like:
"In a beginning, God created this and that"
When you say "If it is without a definite article" This is very ambiguous.. and I have to read on while wondering/unclear what you mean, and then see if can find out what you mean.
i.e. when you say "if it is without a definite article", that's ambiguous, as that could mean it has no definite article written in, but is read with one..
So, when you say "if it is without a definite article" that it'd be "a", then
It's better to say "If it is with an indefinite article". That's totally clear particularly because hebrew doesn't have an explicit indefinite article. So there's no question what you mean here when you refer to the indefinite article.
It really looks a bit like you contradicted yourself in your usage of terms in an ambiguous way.. 'cos you said " if it is without a definite article, it would be like: "In a beginning, God created this and that""
So here when you said "without a definite article", you mean it has an indefinite article.
Whereas you also said "the fact that also in Gen. it doesn't come with a definite article" So there when you say definite article you mean written in. See it DOES have/come with, a definite article, but you are saying it doesn't. I can figure out what you mean sometimes, if i'm already fairly familiar with it, but it's not so easy.
So, to summarise, these phrases are clear and unambiguous
- An explicit definite article
- An implicit definite article
- An indefinite article
-Read with a definite article
-Read with an indefinite article
-Written with a definite article
-Not written with a definite article.
("Written with an indefinite article", is also clear, but would be English specific, since a word in Hebrew can't be written with an indefinite article)
Those are really clear terms, because before even reading another word, one knows exactly what is being referred to, so when reading onwards, it is all much clearer.
Ralph Zak