49:1, 1 S 16 ff., Mi 6 (אֵת אֲשֶׁר); and even preceding the verb, e.g. Is 52, ψ 69; אֲשֶׁר as genitive, Ez 23 I will deliver thee בְּיַד אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵאת into the hand of those—thou hatest (them); depending on a preposition, e.g. לַֽאֲשֶׁר Gn 44, 2 K 10; בַּֽאֲשֶׁר Gn 21, בַּֽאֲשֶׁר הוּא שָׁם in that (place)—he is there, i.e. where he is; cf. Jul 17:8 and Ru 1 אֶל־אֲשֶׁר whither;[1] 1 K 18 עַל־אֲשֶׁר whither; מֵֽאֲשֶׁר Ex 5.
[f] From these examples it follows that in independent relative clauses the retrospective suffix, or adverb of place, may be, and in fact generally is, omitted. As a rule, however (as in the dependent relative clause), this does not apply to eases in which the retrospective pronoun, by the construction of the sentence, depends on a preposition,[2] e.g. Gn 44 f. אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא אִתּוֹ... וָמֵת he—it (the cup) is found with him,—shall die (for the Wāw of the apodosis in וָמֵת cf. § 143 d). In such cases אֲשֶׁר preceded by the preposition is quite anomalous, as in Gn 31 עִם אֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא with whomsoever thou findest, where אֲשֶׁר is a relative pronoun in the English sense; on the other hand, in Is 47 (and probably also 56:4) בַּֽאֲשֶׁר is to be explained (with Baumann, op. cit., p. 37) by reference to 47:15, as a demonstrative pronoun, stand now with thine enchantments..., with those—thou hast laboured (with them).
[With regard to the preceding explanation of אֲשֶׁר, the student will of course understand that, in Hebrew as we know it, אֲשֶׁר never occurs as a mere demonstrative. A particle which, whatever its origin, is uniformly used with reference to something in another, contiguous clause, will naturally have acquired in practice that force which we denote by the term ‘relative’.]
[g] Like the original demonstrative pronoun אֲשֶׁר, the demonstratives proper זֶה, זוֹ, זוּ (the last commonly),[3] and sometimes the article, are used somewhat frequently in poetic language to introduce both dependent and independent relative clauses. With regard to the construction of זֶה, &c., the remarks on אֲשֶׁר, under a and e, also hold good.
Examples:—
(a) זֶה in apposition to a governing substantive in the nominative, ψ 104 לִוְיָתָן זֶה־יָצַ֫רְתָּ (there is) leviathan, he—thou hast formed (him), i.e. whom thou hast formed; Is 42 (זוּ); in the accusative, Is 25, ψ 74 (in both eases with a retrospective pronoun; זוֹ is used without it in ψ 132); in apposition to a genitive dependent on a preposition, Pr 23 שְׁמַע לְאָבִ֫יךָ זֶה יְלָדֶ֑ךָ hearken unto thy father, him—he begat thee, i.e. who begat thee; ψ 17 (זוּ).—In ψ 104 אֶל־מְקוֹם זֶה יָסַ֫דְתָּ לָהֶם unto the place which thou hadst founded for them (cf. § 130 c), זֶה is in the genitive after the construct state מְקוֹם to the place of that, thou hadst
- ↑ In Zc 12 also, instead of the unintelligible אלי את אשר, we should probably read אֶל־אֲשֶׁר, and refer the passage to this class.
- ↑ Such a strong ellipse as in Is 31, where מִמֶּ֫נּוּ would be expected after העמיקו, is only possible in elevated poetic or prophetic language.
- ↑ The etymological equivalent דִּי, דְּ in Aramaic is always a relative.
