Jeff A. Benner | Constructio Ad Sensum (Part 2) @ancienthebreworg | Uploaded April 2010 | Updated October 2024, 27 minutes ago.
Edward has pointed out in his last video youtube.com/watch?v=_P7pszOLlyY&feature=watch_response that in my last video I concentrated on the verb and noun relationship to support a grammatical definition of Constructio Ad Sensum. He mentions that Gesenius states that this is "part" of Construction Ad Sensum and this is true. While the verb/noun relationship is one of the most common types, there are others, but they are all related to grammar, not context.
Another example can be found in Genesis 23:17 which states; "And all the trees that were in the field." The word trees is eyts, a singular noun. Actually the plural form, eytsim, always means "wood" never trees. So, eyts can be used for a tree, but it is also used for trees. How do we know that this should be understood as "trees" in this verse? Because the word kol, meaning all, appears before it - kol eyts, If we were to literally translate this , it would be "all tree." Constructio Ad Sensum comes into play here and means that the grammar of the sentence is structured in such a way that the singular noun must be translated as a plural.
If Edward continues to claim that Costructio Ad Sensum can apply to context alone, I would like him to give me proof of such instead of just claiming it.
Edward has pointed out in his last video youtube.com/watch?v=_P7pszOLlyY&feature=watch_response that in my last video I concentrated on the verb and noun relationship to support a grammatical definition of Constructio Ad Sensum. He mentions that Gesenius states that this is "part" of Construction Ad Sensum and this is true. While the verb/noun relationship is one of the most common types, there are others, but they are all related to grammar, not context.
Another example can be found in Genesis 23:17 which states; "And all the trees that were in the field." The word trees is eyts, a singular noun. Actually the plural form, eytsim, always means "wood" never trees. So, eyts can be used for a tree, but it is also used for trees. How do we know that this should be understood as "trees" in this verse? Because the word kol, meaning all, appears before it - kol eyts, If we were to literally translate this , it would be "all tree." Constructio Ad Sensum comes into play here and means that the grammar of the sentence is structured in such a way that the singular noun must be translated as a plural.
If Edward continues to claim that Costructio Ad Sensum can apply to context alone, I would like him to give me proof of such instead of just claiming it.
